Yes there is a significant advantage conveyed by integrating hearing, feeling, detecting and lung and heart processing activity, articulations, motor movement initiations, sensed shapes and motions, chemical releases and detections, in near real time. I think I've done a pretty good job of pointing to things that validate there are available physical traces, complexity, and integration of nervous system to being these processes together systematically.
One needn't attribute something, self, not connected to physicalist basis of behavior as emergent.
No. It just is part and parcel of what the brain and body of a being does. And I predict it's engine is just as physical as is subvoclization of something being said that is heard.
Please note the difference between what I wrote and what you labeled. Mine include sources actually used by the person yours is unattached to any material basis for being. It's just a big glorious word, without substance, used to encompass the activities I wrote.
I've made m point?
Naturally.
We all know what we mean by our "selves". I want other "selves" to wear a mask and get vaccinated. Neuroscience is free to thoroughly research and explain in detail how our mental selves are produced by physical brain processes. This does not make the "self" disappear. It only explains the "self" in scientific detail. And there is no need to embrace any sort of dualism (well, aside from the two hemispheres).
I call it the "reductionist fallacy", where we think that, having explained something, we have somehow magically explained it away.
It's all yours, Marvin. You will not convince FDI that there is any reason at all not try and make words like "self" disappear.
Note: He does not just want to make it disappear from the lexicon. He thinks it's fine for us dummies, the "Great Unwashed" herd who do not belong in sophisticated discussions. He wants it to disappear from any serious research, in any field, particularly in psychiatry and neuroscience.
He reduces everything in human nature and biology to "Twitches and squirts". I once argued with him intensely because he believes that the individual (another word scientism doesn't care for) does NOT understand their OWN pain as well as a person in a lab coat doing research on them. He does NOT think their "reportage", or their description of what they themselves are literally feeling,
somaticallly, not just emotionally or mentally, is "reliable" and can be tossed out. Only the researchers' data matters, NOT the subject/patient's expression of their pain.
Ask him (or DBT) about the ethics and/or morality of Dr. Jose Delgado, a deceased neuroscientist famous for his research and experimentation into the brain. Hell of a nice guy, with moral qualms - at first, or at least ostensibly. But in the 1970's he gave a speech and his notoriously ethically bankrupt statements about the future of neuroscience, and, most importantly, its application to the betterment of society, are on the internet if you should want to look him up. His books, or at least one of them, caused a great deal of controversy, but it has since been swept away.
