The Illusion of the Self

[Warren Dew]

I'm late to this as I don't go for 'serious' stuff these days for the most part.

I've read all except FBM's. The only way for me to keep from getting a headache from his flashing avatar and signature is to scroll them off screen as quickly as possible.

[hadespussercats]

How is personality different from or the same as Self, as we've been discussing it?

Hmm. Well, I think personality is behavior, not identity. When you go to sleep or go under general anesthesia or whatever, your behavior stops. You don't have a personality during that time. But people don't consider themselves as ceasing to be a Self during that time. You're still identified as the same person, both socially and legally. Since scientific investigation into the reality of the Self is an empirical investigation, observable behavior or substance would be the subject. (I'm glad science is taking this investigation from philosophers who just sit around swapping opinions and making metaphysical claims without empirical evidence to support them.)

Or, let me put it another way. In that TED Talk, the scientist described how her personality changed dramatically as the stroke progressed, switching from right-brain dominated thought-behavior to left-brain thought-behavior. She said it was like she had two Selves inside her. But she's just one person. People with multiple personality disorders and whatnot aren't really multiple people, are they? If personality = Self, we'd have no choice but to regard them as multiple people, I think. Until they got cured maybe.

See, that's where I'm not sure. The personality is a product of the brain as much as the Self is, isn't it?

From what you've said, it seems the Self is simply a life that can take actions as an organized unit.

By that notion, why would one person be different in attitudes, responses, and choices, from any other? (This is true for cats, and other mammals, in my experience-- they have idiosyncratic behaviors that don't seem to relate in any clear way to evolved efficiency of responses.)

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

At best, I would be in that perfect, eternal present where we're all connected as human minds, all beautiful (I'm paraphrasing that TED video-- how she spoke about the right hemisphere working on its own), but that is not me. Or at least, not me when I'm not either ecstatic, extremely tired, or drunk/drugged.

That's where personality comes in, for me. But what is that, and how does it relate to the Self we've already been discussing?

[hadespussercats]

Warren Dew wrote:

Ignoring the issue of the sense of self for the moment, the rest of it is just the nonrandom wiring and firing of neurons. There isn't an actual actor making a single coherent choice; the choice is an emergent property from the coordination of millions of neurons.

You might ask how those millions of neurons coordinate in such a seemingly coherent way. That is where trillions of creature years of evolution come into play: the solutions which facilitate the fairly coherent objective of preserving the gene line are those that have survived, and those solutions involve neural organization that behaves in a way that makes coherent choices. The many other options for organizing the neurons have been pruned away by natural selection.

This, of course, only explains why we act as if we had a sense of self. In principle, it seems we could act that way even if we were really automata - p-zombies that act as if they are self aware, but lack the actual self awareness. The interesting part - why we have an actual conscious awareness of self, or more specifically why we have a consciousness to be aware of self - it doesn't answer. It does, however, illustrate that the unanswered part of the question, the question of consciousness, is distinct from the part with the boring mechanical answer.

Certainly resonates with my thinking. I doubt whether any quantum-level effects are required to achieve our current state of consciousness; my take is simply that the illusion of a discrete self that views itself as the active, decision-making agent is an efficient mental state from the point of view of natural selection.

Can I make a confession? I don't understand what quantum means when it's used in this context.

[charlou]

^ I was going to ask that very question, hades.

[charlou]

How is personality different from or the same as Self, as we've been discussing it?

Hmm. Well, I think personality is behavior, not identity. When you go to sleep or go under general anesthesia or whatever, your behavior stops. You don't have a personality during that time. But people don't consider themselves as ceasing to be a Self during that time. You're still identified as the same person, both socially and legally. Since scientific investigation into the reality of the Self is an empirical investigation, observable behavior or substance would be the subject. (I'm glad science is taking this investigation from philosophers who just sit around swapping opinions and making metaphysical claims without empirical evidence to support them.)

Or, let me put it another way. In that TED Talk, the scientist described how her personality changed dramatically as the stroke progressed, switching from right-brain dominated thought-behavior to left-brain thought-behavior. She said it was like she had two Selves inside her. But she's just one person. People with multiple personality disorders and whatnot aren't really multiple people, are they? If personality = Self, we'd have no choice but to regard them as multiple people, I think. Until they got cured maybe.

See, that's where I'm not sure. The personality is a product of the brain as much as the Self is, isn't it?

From what you've said, it seems the Self is simply a life that can take actions as an organized unit.

By that notion, why would one person be different in attitudes, responses, and choices, from any other? (This is true for cats, and other mammals, in my experience-- they have idiosyncratic behaviors that don't seem to relate in any clear way to evolved efficiency of responses.)

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

At best, I would be in that perfect, eternal present where we're all connected as human minds, all beautiful (I'm paraphrasing that TED video-- how she spoke about the right hemisphere working on its own), but that is not me. Or at least, not me when I'm not either ecstatic, extremely tired, or drunk/drugged.

That's where personality comes in, for me. But what is that, and how does it relate to the Self we've already been discussing?

re the bit I've bolded .. Legality aside, would you really, though? Would you retain that if you were not cognitively aware of it? I think refering to that lack/loss of cognitive awareness as 'vegetative' is pretty apt.

Are trees of a species individuals? I guess so. They're all unique due to genetic and environmental factors. They're just not aware ... so can we say they each have a 'self', as distinct from a personality?

[FBM]

How is personality different from or the same as Self, as we've been discussing it?

Hmm. Well, I think personality is behavior, not identity. When you go to sleep or go under general anesthesia or whatever, your behavior stops. You don't have a personality during that time. But people don't consider themselves as ceasing to be a Self during that time. You're still identified as the same person, both socially and legally. Since scientific investigation into the reality of the Self is an empirical investigation, observable behavior or substance would be the subject. (I'm glad science is taking this investigation from philosophers who just sit around swapping opinions and making metaphysical claims without empirical evidence to support them.)

Or, let me put it another way. In that TED Talk, the scientist described how her personality changed dramatically as the stroke progressed, switching from right-brain dominated thought-behavior to left-brain thought-behavior. She said it was like she had two Selves inside her. But she's just one person. People with multiple personality disorders and whatnot aren't really multiple people, are they? If personality = Self, we'd have no choice but to regard them as multiple people, I think. Until they got cured maybe.

See, that's where I'm not sure. The personality is a product of the brain as much as the Self is, isn't it?

From what you've said, it seems the Self is simply a life that can take actions as an organized unit.

By that notion, why would one person be different in attitudes, responses, and choices, from any other? (This is true for cats, and other mammals, in my experience-- they have idiosyncratic behaviors that don't seem to relate in any clear way to evolved efficiency of responses.)

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

At best, I would be in that perfect, eternal present where we're all connected as human minds, all beautiful (I'm paraphrasing that TED video-- how she spoke about the right hemisphere working on its own), but that is not me. Or at least, not me when I'm not either ecstatic, extremely tired, or drunk/drugged.

That's where personality comes in, for me. But what is that, and how does it relate to the Self we've already been discussing?

That takes us right back to the question that got people looking into this in the first place. If there's no eternal soul, then what is the Self? The conventional definition is that there's some special thing or substance in a human that uniquely identifies that person. Scientific analysis of the human body tells us that ain't so. Or at least, that they can't find it. Not even in the brain. So the Self in conventional tems hasn't been found yet, though it's wisest to continue acting as if it existed.

But there's definitely something going on in an animal, an organized set of processes and behaviors that are never repeated identically. That is, this moment's heartbeat is temporally distinct from the previous one. It's not the same heartbeat.) This is a modified definition of what it means to be a human (or animal). In this modified definition, there is no Self substance, as in the conventional definition, and furthermore, processes and behaviors are constantly changing. So, strictly speaking, in absolute, scientific terms, it's absurd to say, in light of this new data, that "I" am the same person from birth to death or through a given time span between. There's just nothing the same throughout. Of course, emergent properties (where the illusion resides) are real in a sense, but not in a fundamental sense. Their existence is fully dependent upon a temporary arrangement of underlying structures. Properties of any sort, emergent or otherwise, don't fit the definition of an entity, as far as I know. Somebody might correct me on that.

But it's still better, maybe necessary, to continue behaving as if we were the same person throughout life. No need for any extreme reactions to this information. Nothing to be done about it, as far as I can tell.

[charlou]

I read a while back that the sense of smell relies on a quantum effect. If that's the case, it does affect consciousness and, therefore, events on a macroscopic scale.

Edit: Looked it up. It's not confirmed yet.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... tions.html

Interesting ... MZ and I were talking about the sense of smell just the other day .. I was thinking about how/why we often lose sensitivy to odours once we become accustomed to them. It's like an odour becomes categorised and filed away in our brain, and no longer a priority. This leads to interesting, if rather vague and difficult to articulate, ponderings related to this topic, for me.

[charlou]

How is personality different from or the same as Self, as we've been discussing it?

Hmm. Well, I think personality is behavior, not identity. When you go to sleep or go under general anesthesia or whatever, your behavior stops. You don't have a personality during that time. But people don't consider themselves as ceasing to be a Self during that time. You're still identified as the same person, both socially and legally. Since scientific investigation into the reality of the Self is an empirical investigation, observable behavior or substance would be the subject. (I'm glad science is taking this investigation from philosophers who just sit around swapping opinions and making metaphysical claims without empirical evidence to support them.)

Or, let me put it another way. In that TED Talk, the scientist described how her personality changed dramatically as the stroke progressed, switching from right-brain dominated thought-behavior to left-brain thought-behavior. She said it was like she had two Selves inside her. But she's just one person. People with multiple personality disorders and whatnot aren't really multiple people, are they? If personality = Self, we'd have no choice but to regard them as multiple people, I think. Until they got cured maybe.

See, that's where I'm not sure. The personality is a product of the brain as much as the Self is, isn't it?

From what you've said, it seems the Self is simply a life that can take actions as an organized unit.

By that notion, why would one person be different in attitudes, responses, and choices, from any other? (This is true for cats, and other mammals, in my experience-- they have idiosyncratic behaviors that don't seem to relate in any clear way to evolved efficiency of responses.)

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

At best, I would be in that perfect, eternal present where we're all connected as human minds, all beautiful (I'm paraphrasing that TED video-- how she spoke about the right hemisphere working on its own), but that is not me. Or at least, not me when I'm not either ecstatic, extremely tired, or drunk/drugged.

That's where personality comes in, for me. But what is that, and how does it relate to the Self we've already been discussing?

That takes us right back to the question that got people looking into this in the first place. If there's no eternal soul, then what is the Self? The conventional definition is that there's some special thing or substance in a human that uniquely identifies that person. Scientific analysis of the human body tells us that ain't so. Or at least, that they can't find it. Not even in the brain. So the Self in conventional tems hasn't been found yet, though it's wisest to continue acting as if it existed.

But there's definitely something going on in an animal, an organized set of processes and behaviors that are never repeated identically. That is, this moment's heartbeat is temporally distinct from the previous one. It's not the same heartbeat.) This is a modified definition of what it means to be a human (or animal). In this modified definition, there is no Self substance, as in the conventional definition, and furthermore, processes and behaviors are constantly changing. So, strictly speaking, in absolute, scientific terms, it's absurd to say, in light of this new data, that "I" am the same person from birth to death or through a given time span between. There's just nothing the same throughout. Of course, emergent properties (where the illusion resides) are real in a sense, but not in a fundamental sense. Their existence is fully dependent upon a temporary arrangement of underlying structures. Properties of any sort, emergent or otherwise, don't fit the definition of an entity, as far as I know. Somebody might correct me on that.

But it's still better, maybe necessary, to continue behaving as if we were the same person throughout life. No need for any extreme reactions to this information. Nothing to be done about it, as far as I can tell.

Our cells are constantly renewing, yes .. but my understanding is that they're also replicating ... and with age, replicating with some deterioration. Injuries can also affect replication, as can viruses and disease.

[FBM]

Yeah. And new stuff replases the old...

[charlou]

replaces .. or the old gives rise to the new?

[Warren Dew]

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

I don't think it was me who objected to the terminology. I know what you mean.

However - are you "you" when you are asleep and not dreaming? I think we should be careful about people in comas or persistent vegetative states, as there are cases of their waking after many years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... years.html

Sometimes they are conscious of some of the things that go on around them, even if they show no outward sign of understanding, as with this woman who had learned something of 9/11 in the middle of her two decade coma:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500178_162-757388.html

More evidence that just because people can't tell us what they are experiencing, does not mean they aren't experiencing anything:

http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpres ... rroudings/

[FBM]

replaces .. or the old gives rise to the new?

The actual, physical material is exchanged, I mean. The atoms and molecules. I've read in various places that all the matter in the human body is replaced every 7 years. I can't find a scientific/medical source for that info, though.

In a different discussion on this topic on another forum, someone mentioned (thanks, Thump) that there are cranial neurons that are long-lived and may even last a lifetime. I looked it up and found that even though those cells don't divide and slough off, the lipids in the cell walls, the organelles, the chemicals, are going through this constant flow of matter, too. And anyway, cranial neurons aren't what people conventionally mean when they say Self, so the conventional definition of Self still doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, I think.

Emergent patterns are passed on, though they also fall prey to the temporal issue. Reification of emergent patterns/properties into entity-hood is the source of the illusion, as far as I can tell.

[charlou]

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

I don't think it was me who objected to the terminology. I know what you mean.

However - are you "you" when you are asleep and not dreaming? I think we should be careful about people in comas or persistent vegetative states, as there are cases of their waking after many years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... years.html

Sometimes they are conscious of some of the things that go on around them, even if they show no outward sign of understanding, as with this woman who had learned something of 9/11 in the middle of her two decade coma:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500178_162-757388.html

More evidence that just because people can't tell us what they are experiencing, does not mean they aren't experiencing anything:

http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpres ... rroudings/

I agree we should be careful not to slip down the slope of writing people off, due to the possibility they may still exist somewhere in there.

But that's kinda tangental to the topic .. and heading into ethics. I suppose you're aware of that, though. I'm just thinking aloud.

[Warren Dew]

I agree we should be careful not to slip down the slope of writing people off, due to the possibility they may still exist somewhere in there.

But that's kinda tangental to the topic .. and heading into ethics. I suppose you're aware of that, though. I'm just thinking aloud.

I think the question of whether you are still "you" when unconscious - whether asleep or in a coma - is directly on target for this thread.

[hadespussercats]

And, I may be mucking up the waters here, but if I were in a persistent vegetative state, or otherwise severely brain damaged but still able to live (in advanced dementia, perhaps) I'd still be/have whatever it is that is my Self (I know, Warren, that makes it sound like a thing. But I think we have been referencing it as functions, grouped together under the general rubric or purpose as Self.) But I don't feel as though "I" would exist anymore.

I don't think it was me who objected to the terminology. I know what you mean.

However - are you "you" when you are asleep and not dreaming? I think we should be careful about people in comas or persistent vegetative states, as there are cases of their waking after many years:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... years.html

Sometimes they are conscious of some of the things that go on around them, even if they show no outward sign of understanding, as with this woman who had learned something of 9/11 in the middle of her two decade coma:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500178_162-757388.html

More evidence that just because people can't tell us what they are experiencing, does not mean they aren't experiencing anything:

http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpres ... rroudings/

Hm. I see what you're getting at, but it's a little different from where I was coming from.

Let me see if I can phrase it better in a hypothetical--
If my self is a collection of functions performed collaboratively within my brain (and other parts of my body), then I would agree that my self is still my self whether waking, sleeping, in a coma, etc., barring really excessive damage to the apparatus.

However, if I were to start acting while physically awake the way I do while I'm asleep (if that's even possible to picture, given the different paces of functions and types of functions my brain and body carry out, but run with me, if you can), I don't think I'd be the same person. I'm pretty sure my friends and family would think there was something deeply wrong about me, perhaps even something absent, that would make me effectively a different person to them.

The way we've been discussing Self previously in the thread may need to change (to accomodate RiverF's concerns, and mine), or-- I'd like to explore some of these other layers of what makes up this illusion or construct or physical assemblage or what have you that make up either Self (consciousness) or personality (a sense, possibly illusory, of a unique individual) or both.

This (what I wrote) feels really strained. I hope some of it makes sense.