The Illusion of Self

[DBT]

Your irrational fear of transcendency is your problem.

Nothing about existence is explained.

We have no idea why there is existence or what existence is.

All we know is a little of how existence behaves.

You may be right though.

The self has consciousness is probably the best way to describe it.

Consciousness is an ability of the self.

I think mind and self mean the same thing though. The self is a mind. It does not have a mind.

What fear? I'm asking you to clarify your position. You tend to be vague about what you believe (your remarks above, for example).

I'm trying to get you to give a clear and concise description of your belief on mind, self and consciousness.

Can you do that or not?

The self and the mind are that which experiences.

That doesn't really describe the nature of experience, self or mind.

They are the same thing.

The mind is the self.

The mind has the property called consciousness. It is aware of things.

That's hardly controversial. In broad terms, i don't think anyone disagrees.

The mind is aware of the table in front of it. It is conscious of the table. It is aware of happiness and a little pain in the stomach. It is aware of memories. The mind relies on short term and long term memory.

When we use the term "subjective" we are talking about a mind experiencing. And it is invisible to all observers.

But none of this is understood physiologically. We only have our experience. And our experience of mind is what mind is as much as the physiology.

We are not being fooled into thinking we are experiencing. We are experiencing.

Yes, but what exactly are you arguing?

Are you saying that because how consciousness is being formed or generated is not understood, it is not the brain (as commonly thought) that is generating consciousness?

Is that your position?

 

[untermensche]

The self and the mind are that which experiences.

That doesn't really describe the nature of experience, self or mind.

Mind has a nature that it has the ability to experience things.

The nature of experience is not easy.

It is a mind aware of many different experiences at once.

The visual system is not the pain system and not the system for position sense of the body or sense of muscle tension.

Each system of experience is a different thing.

But they all focus towards one mind.

And a mind is a bumbling stumbling error prone irrational entity that can be turned by experience and will into a more efficient yet still possibly error prone tool.

Yes, but what exactly are you arguing?

I argue specific points. You would have to look at my comments to see what I was arguing about.

Are you saying that because how consciousness is being formed or generated is not understood, it is not the brain (as commonly thought) that is generating consciousness?

I say several things.

One is that experience requires that which can experience and the things that can be experienced.

If I experience blue it means I must have a separation from blue to recognize it.

Mind is not an homunculus though. The problem with an homunculus is you cannot say you have explained what conscious experience is by postulating an homunculus. I am not claiming to be able to explain the phenomena of experience. I am just making logical connections from the concept of experience. Looking at what is required for there to be experience. To experience something is to recognize it. To recognize green requires a separation of green from the thing that can experience green. The mind is not the white cat. The mind recognizes the white cat. The mind is not the thought. The mind is aware of the thought.

The idea of experience will not be explained by me.

We really don't know what experience is beyond our subjective experience with experience.

 

[fromderinside]

Where has it been used?

It may be the movement of oxygen through the brain that creates consciousness.

We have no idea.

Consciousness is not a known electrical phenomena.

Consciousness may be some very tiny tiny activity that is amplified.

We have no idea what specific activity is producing it.

First you claim hemoglobin may be at the root of consciousness now you say "I dunno."

Wasted posts.

We have no idea because there is no evidence for a consciousness, nor a self outside some historical language based subvocal talking to no one hints that something is putting together a memory perhaps.

Actually we now there is wakefulness from behavior and recordings from the hindbrain. That, however isn't consciousness nor even evidence of any subjective thing. There isn't because there isn't a material subjective thing. Just a conceit promulgated by those who insist humans are 'special'.

 

[DBT]

I say several things.

One is that experience requires that which can experience and the things that can be experienced.

If I experience blue it means I must have a separation from blue to recognize it.

What is the nature of this ''I'' that you say is the experiencer? That is a point that you need to describe clearly. There are other problems, but one point at a time.

 

[untermensche]

First you claim hemoglobin may be at the root of consciousness now you say "I dunno."

I said the movement of blood or something in the blood, like oxygen or iron, through the brain may be what generates consciousness.

You have not shown that to not be the case.

You have wasted my time as usual with your empty nothingness.

 

[untermensche]

I say several things.

One is that experience requires that which can experience and the things that can be experienced.

If I experience blue it means I must have a separation from blue to recognize it.

What is the nature of this ''I'' that you say is the experiencer? That is a point that you need to describe clearly. There are other problems, but one point at a time.

Nobody knows the nature of this "I".

We experience as a self. We don't experience the self.

 

[fromderinside]

There you go with that experience construct again. When you put meat and cause on it, come back and we'll talk.

Psychanalysts disagree with you.

They do believe in The self. They depend on it as basis for their theories.

I disagree with you for different reasons. Self is a after the fact subjective mockup of what you think you are. Whole cloth from mental tidbits generally to make you look good to others. In this I believe I'm in agreement with Wegner and Dennett and Jaynes.

 

[untermensche]

Your appeals to authority are noted.

You need more though.

I think Dennett is an over-rated wind bag that is full of shit.

He has no magic to escape the needs of experience.

 

[untermensche]

dp

 

[DBT]

I say several things.

One is that experience requires that which can experience and the things that can be experienced.

If I experience blue it means I must have a separation from blue to recognize it.

What is the nature of this ''I'' that you say is the experiencer? That is a point that you need to describe clearly. There are other problems, but one point at a time.

Nobody knows the nature of this "I".

We experience as a self. We don't experience the self.

You claim knowledge even while denying that knowledge exists.

 

[untermensche]

Nobody knows the nature of this "I".

We experience as a self. We don't experience the self.

You claim knowledge even while denying that knowledge exists.

I claim what must be.

To experience in human terms is when a mind experiences things.

The mind has the capacity to experience.

And it does as a self with memories and proclivities.

There is not just experience. There is a self having experiences. Being aware of them.

 

[DBT]

Nobody knows the nature of this "I".

We experience as a self. We don't experience the self.

You claim knowledge even while denying that knowledge exists.

I claim what must be.

To experience in human terms is when a mind experiences things.

The mind has the capacity to experience.

And it does as a self with memories and proclivities.

There is not just experience. There is a self having experiences. Being aware of them.

You claim what you believe. You state your position even while saying 'nothing is known about consciousness.''

Can you answer the question without skirting the issue; is the brain responsible for generating mind/consciousness? A yes or no will do for a start.

 

[fromderinside]

Did somebody just fart all over untrmensche's conceits?

Seriously untermensche do you actually believe humans operate as conscious beings most of the time? That it is necessary they experience and be conscious and express self constantly else they would become extinct? For my part I'm happy with humans being self aware about 10% of the time. We have some really impressive reactive systems in place. I wonder why if it all depends on self, experience and consciousness. Just sayin ...

 

[untermensche]

I claim what must be.

To experience in human terms is when a mind experiences things.

The mind has the capacity to experience.

And it does as a self with memories and proclivities.

There is not just experience. There is a self having experiences. Being aware of them.

You claim what you believe. You state your position even while saying 'nothing is known about consciousness.''

Can you answer the question without skirting the issue; is the brain responsible for generating mind/consciousness? A yes or no will do for a start.

I know nothing objective about consciousness. Nobody does.

Saying it has something to do with the brain is not knowing what it is. That is a hypothesis.

My guess is if we ever understand what generates consciousness it will have something to do with some kind of activity in the nervous system. I speculate there is nothing external to the nervous system involved.

But who knows?

 

[untermensche]

Seriously untermensche do you actually believe humans operate as conscious beings most of the time?

You have no seriousness.

I believe humans have the capacity.

That capacity exists.

The surgeon is very conscious of what they are doing.

A lot of what humans do is self-talk. They do that all day. A running dialogue with words in their minds.

 

[fromderinside]

We all subvocalize whether it is detectable or not. That's actually how we hear ourselves 'thinking'. I was surprised to learn that was true although I know that it must have been different with people who read at above 5000 words a minute like John Kennedy. We know they accomplish that by chunking or surmising as they read.

Even surgeons commit actions to physical memory for most elements of their surgical processes. I recently went through a pacemaker replacement where I was only partially seduced. I felt his fingers massaging the area more or less constantly while he was interacting with his nurses. I asked about that. He said he was in discussion with his anesthesiologist, operating assistant, and surgical nurse a lot but he wasn't aware he was manipulating. That was even though most of the time he was unaware of doing so although he said he was pretty active because the procedure called for a lot of mechanical manipulation.

 

[abaddon]

... is the brain responsible for generating mind/consciousness? A yes or no will do for a start.

The answer is Maybe. No one knows exactly how conscious experience "arises" from material processes, or even if it "arises" from them. Possibly the brain is more like a transceiver than a generator. Maybe matter is fundamentally "mental" in substance; panpsychism is a serious proposition in philosophy of mind.

So both Yes and No would be indemonstrable, dogmatic positions.

 

[DBT]

... is the brain responsible for generating mind/consciousness? A yes or no will do for a start.

The answer is Maybe. No one knows exactly how conscious experience "arises" from material processes, or even if it "arises" from them. Possibly the brain is more like a transceiver than a generator. Maybe matter is fundamentally "mental" in substance; panpsychism is a serious proposition in philosophy of mind.

So both Yes and No would be indemonstrable, dogmatic positions.

Instances of perceptions, thoughts, feelings, decisions, etc - consciousness- are directly related to the events in the environment being perceived and thought about, the activity of perception and thought being detectable within the related regions of the brain, visual, auditory cortext, frontal lobes, etc in the form of electrochemical activity/information exchange....information acquired by the senses, processed, encoded in memory and so on.

So why is there any reason to suppose that all of this is being beamed from an unknown source for unknown reason?

Is that an option that should be seriously considered? If so, why?

 

[DBT]

I claim what must be.

To experience in human terms is when a mind experiences things.

The mind has the capacity to experience.

And it does as a self with memories and proclivities.

There is not just experience. There is a self having experiences. Being aware of them.

You claim what you believe. You state your position even while saying 'nothing is known about consciousness.''

Can you answer the question without skirting the issue; is the brain responsible for generating mind/consciousness? A yes or no will do for a start.

I know nothing objective about consciousness. Nobody does.

Saying it has something to do with the brain is not knowing what it is. That is a hypothesis.

My guess is if we ever understand what generates consciousness it will have something to do with some kind of activity in the nervous system. I speculate there is nothing external to the nervous system involved.

But who knows?

If not the brain, as all the evidence suggests, what is generating consciousness?

God? The spirit world? The twilight zone? The Astral plane? The Angels?

What are the options?

 

[untermensche]

If not the brain, as all the evidence suggests, what is generating consciousness?

God? The spirit world? The twilight zone? The Astral plane? The Angels?

What are the options?

I don't include the gods in any of my thinking ever.

They are not something I would ever consider part of the universe without evidence.

But until something is known all we can do is keep looking.

But we have to know what we are looking for.

We are looking for some "thing" capable of being aware of all the experiences humans have. And also looking for the way that thing is made aware of experiences. A thing that grows as the person grows and experiences. A thing that ages and degrades as the person ages and degrades.