The Illusion of Self

[ruby sparks]

Claim: Self is an illusion.

An illusion is not something that is not there, it is only something that is not what it seems to be.



Humans generally seem to find it easy and natural to locate their centre of conscuiosness.

Of 59 participants in an experiment, 90% identified a location in their bodies for the centre of their consciousness, where their self was felt to be.

83% identified that location to be in their head, between and behind the eyes, as per the dots on the diagram above. That is also where I would have chosen.

There is nothing located in any particular part of the body (or outside of it) where there is a self.

Therefore, self is an illusion, or if you prefer, a subjective sense of self, when it is present (it isn't always or fully) generally seems to involve an illusion, at least the illusion that it has or acts through a centre.

Point Zero: A Phenomenological Inquiry into the subjective Physical Location of Consciousness
http://en.asia.it/adon.pl?act=doc&doc=787

 

[rousseau]

I wonder if this is one of those situations where the act of prompting causes the participants to locate their self. Where if you prompted with something like do you think the self has a definite physical location a greater percentage would say no. The power of suggestion and all that, most won't think to respond in a contradictory manner to the study.

As for the illusion of self, it seems like an odd framing of the question to me. Does there need to be a physical location besides the totality of the body for me to have a self? To me it seems like the conversation has been put in the context of Christianity where there is a belief of an 'inner-mover', a metaphysical substance. Of course from that perspective the self doesn't exist. But going beyond the metaphysical, what would it mean to have a self in the context of pure materialism? Why couldn't the self simply be the totality of my body and internal experience?

If the experience of being human feels like being a unique individual who is relatively stable across time, why not make that our definition of self?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I think that sighted people locate their sense of self because of where our eyes are. We experience ourselves based on where our eye literally place our point of view.

Any research on where blind people place their self? That might be interesting.

 

[steve_bank]

To me the Buddhist idea of illusory self just means 'we' are thought forms. It does not mean we do not exist.

My illusory self runs into a wall shattering the illusion of my illusory self. HeeHee this metaphysical stuff can be fun.

 

[ruby sparks]

If the experience of being human feels like being a unique individual who is relatively stable across time, why not make that our definition of self?

I think that already is the cognitive science definition of self.

The question is whether it is an illusion.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think that sighted people locate their sense of self because of where our eyes are. We experience ourselves based on where our eye literally place our point of view.

Any research on where blind people place their self? That might be interesting.

Interesting point.

In fact, the OP study had 13 blind people, and they all located their centre of consciousness in their heads. I think their dots are incorporated into that illustration.

I might need to read the study again to check if they were all blind from birth.

One (sighted) Italian located the centre of his consciousness in his belly.

 

[rousseau]

If the experience of being human feels like being a unique individual who is relatively stable across time, why not make that our definition of self?

I think that already is the cognitive science definition of self.

The question is whether it is an illusion.

What would have to be true about our experience for you to consider it an illusion? What is the defining factor that would make our sense of self an illusion, and not just how we experience the world as an animal?

 

[ruby sparks]

What would have to be true about our experience for you to consider it an illusion?

Locating a self where there isn't one would be a good example regarding our experience of self, imo.

What is the defining factor that would make our sense of self an illusion, and not just how we experience the world as an animal?

I don't understand the question. The two things (sense of self being an illusion and it being the way we experience the world as an animal) are non-conflicting.

 

[rousseau]

I don't understand the question. The two things (sense of self being an illusion and it being the way we experience the world as an animal) are non-conflicting.

The question is - what is it about this experience that makes it an illusion? I'm not claiming that it isn't an illusion, I just don't see any concrete reason why we would consider it one. If our benchmark for it being an illusion is a physical entity being inside our body, then sure, it's an illusion. I just don't think that's a good benchmark.

IOW, we might as well move onward from discussing the self as a tangible thing in of itself, because that's obviously not what it is. My argument would be that our sense of self is derived from the cognitive science definition you mention. In which it has a real existence as a part of our mental world. Therefore not an illusion.

 

[steve_bank]

It is an illusion in the sense that you can touch your brain but not your thoughts.

Our sense of self is also relative to perceptions and others around us.

 

[ruby sparks]

The question is - what is it about this experience that makes it an illusion?

Ok. This time I'm going to type really, really slowly, just for you.

People generally tend to think it's in the middle of their heads, just behind their eyes, but it isn't.

 

[rousseau]

The question is - what is it about this experience that makes it an illusion?

Ok. This time I'm going to type really, really slowly, just for you.

People generally tend to think it's in the middle of their heads, just behind their eyes, but it isn't.

Right, my last few posts follow from that.

 

[steve_bank]

The question is - what is it about this experience that makes it an illusion?

Ok. This time I'm going to type really, really slowly, just for you.

People generally tend to think it's in the middle of their heads, just behind their eyes, but it isn't.

That is called The Third Eye in yoga. The seat and focal point of psychic powers.

The Sixth Chakra is most commonly referred to as the “third eye” or “third eye center” because it is said to be the place where intuition, imagination and insight live in our bodies. The Sanskrit term for this chakra is “Ajna” and is translated into English as “command center” or “to command.” In this article, we learn more about our third eye center and how to balance the sixth chakra so that we are better able to tap into our natural intuition and insight.

Where is the Third Eye Chakra located?

The third eye center is located at midline (or center) of your head right between the eyebrows. Our third eye also includes the pituitary gland and frontal cortex of the brain. The pituitary gland secrets hormones and governs the function of the previous five glands of chakras 1-5. It is the “command center” gland for all of the glands and, like a guide; it oversees the functionality of these five important glands.

https://seattleyoganews.com/yoga-explained-series-ajna-third-eye-chakra/

 

[steve_bank]

The illusion of self in yoga is also about the idea we do not have a separate identity from the whole. There is no 'indepehdent' self.

A holistic social view.

 

[Angry Floof]

You would probably enjoy Thomas Metzinger's work if you're not already familiar with it.

The Ego Tunnel: The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self

There is no such thing as a self. It's a process, a phenomenon, and there is no such thing as you. Everything you experience as a self is really a complex and ever changing creation made of identity, subjective consciousness, narrative, etc., basically you're made of ideas, most of which are picked up from toddlerhood. Metzinger describes two basic aspects of the self, the functional self and the phenomenal self. The functional self is what allows you to sense your body and environment, eat an apple, love your mom, and is based in biology. The phenomenal self is a very convincing, detailed, and constantly self-reinforcing illusion.

Side note: I LOVE the rubber hand illusion. So much fun.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZsDDseI5QI[/YOUTUBE]

 

[steve_bank]

Once I developed my beliefs I stopped reading yet more books on mysticism and pop psychology. Books that lead to no useful ends or conclusions. Asian and western philosophies and traditions have coved all a long tome back. There is nothing new modern science. That is where I dwelled and still do.

I set about living and enjoying my work.

 

[Tharmas]

I like the distinction between two "selfs." One is more like what Rousseau refers to, relating to the body as a whole. The second is more subtle, what the paper in the OP refers to as the center of consciousness, or the "I" that perceives. I remember from somewhere reading of Francis Crick's work on the "hard problem" of consciousness. A woman said to him that she didn't see the problem, that it was just like a TV in her brain. Crick replied "Yes, but who is watching the TV?"

Where in the brain is this "I"? There isn't a little fellow "behind the curtain" pulling levers and pushing buttons to move your hand or make you talk. That's the "self" that is the illusion. In my opinion it may be a bi-product of intelligence, an essential fiction for language perhaps, a way of avoiding having to say "My brain just indicated that it moved my hand" and other circumlocutions that make little sense.

 

[DBT]

Self as a construct of memory: an identity formed from experience built layer upon layer, name, family, language, culture, traits, strengths and weaknesses, beliefs, aversions, hobbies occupation, enabling recognition abd a sense of self awareness and identity.

Which unravels layer by layer if memory loss becomes progressive, first the short term memory followed by layers to the point of loss of identity.

 

[ruby sparks]

The question is - what is it about this experience that makes it an illusion?

Ok. This time I'm going to type really, really slowly, just for you.

People generally tend to think it's in the middle of their heads, just behind their eyes, but it isn't.

Right, my last few posts follow from that.

I think we can agree that you sure seem to think they do.

When did you start to have this apparent problem with resisting taking on board evidence that shows things which are contrary to our commonly-held intuitions and folk-psychological beliefs?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The question is - what is it about this experience that makes it an illusion?

Ok. This time I'm going to type really, really slowly, just for you.

People generally tend to think it's in the middle of their heads, just behind their eyes, but it isn't.

So, is that making the SELF an illusion, or the sense of the LOCATION of self?

I think our self could be processed in nerve cells in our toes, but if the bulk of our sensory data comes from our skull (vision, hearing, balance, motion, smell), that's where we experience it.
I think you're making an error saying the 'self' is an illusion, if it's just a trait that does not show up on the proprioception (sp?) inventory.