The Illusion of Self

[untermensche]

The person does not respond to anything that it is not conscious of.

You may get some reflexive behavior of the brain.

But that is not the person responding.

THE PERSON is not the brain.

A person responding is an evolutionary development of the nervous system beyond the reflex.

But just because a person evolved does not mean the reflexes went away.

Another problem resolved by properly defining words. A person is not just a brain. A person might have 2 arms, and 2 legs, and a body, and maybe friends and a bank account. But a person always has a brain. Therefore what the brain does the person does. Technically reflexes don't even involve the brain. And although reflexes don't require conscious thought, not all unconscious responses are reflexive. Which comes back to why conscious awareness and unconscious awareness are not the same thing.

"Person" can be defined in many ways.

It can mean the entire organism, or it can mean the distinct consciousness with a personality associated with the organism.

I use it in that manner here.

It is not the brain. It is some invisible product with an association to a brain and to the genes and to the experience of the "person".

 

[fromderinside]

I agree. A lot goes on "behind the scenes."

The deal is we, yes even we, -right now - are discussing this rationally by generally falling back on our individual self analyses.

It's a bit tougher than that. Fitness is supposed to be materialistically defined. Squirts, twitches, ion exchange, etc. As soon as one builds up a subjective rational hypothesis like "behind the scenes") one has left material bounds. Untermensche, too, seems to be missing fitness as well driving it on a random bus when the criteria are entirely materially determined.

Now I don't want to go down the Hull road where something like bullae counts serve to quantify. For me fMRI measured oxygen uptake at the loci of particular neural clusters Fitts the Posner, so to speak.

Its a bit complicated because analyses of neural activity and function need be refined. Activity needs be refined to the point where one can say this physical input leads to that physical transaction. That is twitch, action potential, evidence of neural output becomes empirically evident - OK so I am mixing metaphors here in the hope of capturing both audiences - in hope a real discussion ensues.

No I'm not limiting material to such as action potentials which can be shown to be energy conserving communication mechanisms. Who wants to read through the forty or fifty pages one needs to translate such abstraction to energy efficiency ratios.

I'm looking for a middle ground that doesn't reduce to "I think". Unfortunately, there are probably too many abstraction ladders intersecting this area for anyone to be really comfortable.

 

[untermensche]

Fitness goes where it can.

In something that creates vivid dreams.

 

[DBT]

''Person'' can be defined in many ways, but without a functional memory there is only an empty shell.

 

[fromderinside]

Person even with memory is subjective.

 

[WAB]

The definitions of "person", or "personhood" are complex and a cause of great contention among philosophers; but what is certain is that a person is both subjective and objective. Our recognition of another's rights it dependent on our recognition of them as a person, similar to but distinct from ourselves: an individual. Were it not for the capacity to regard other individuals as real, living, physical beings, much like ourselves, there could be no concept of rights, or even of civilization.

 

[fromderinside]

The claim of rights recognition being dependent on person recognition is purely subjective as are the qualities upon which personhood is formed. All of these subjective attributes are problematic for establishing objective personhood leading me to conclude establishing an objective status for personhood is fraudulent. At least with conjoint methods one has some tissue for intervalising subjective ratings.

Nor does your conclusion arise from the linkages used. There are objective methods for developing individual and group rights as well as for asserting properties of groups. Establishing one as an entity can be determined objectively. From there establishing relationships among and between entities can also be derived objectively. Square and circles are distinct objective entities yet they can also be objectively grouped together as geometric figures.

 

[WAB]

The claim of rights recognition being dependent on person recognition is purely subjective as are the qualities upon which personhood is formed. All of these subjective attributes are problematic for establishing objective personhood leading me to conclude establishing an objective status for personhood is fraudulent. At least with conjoint methods one has some tissue for intervalising subjective ratings.

Nor does your conclusion arise from the linkages used. There are objective methods for developing individual and group rights as well as for asserting properties of groups. Establishing one as an entity can be determined objectively...

Yes, "establishing one as an entity can be determined objectively" which is my entire point. Actually it's not. I would not say "can be determined objectively", I would say, "IS determined objectively."

A person is both what it means subjectively - the experience of being a person; and objectively - what it means to exist as an individual to the perception of others, regardless of subjective experience.

One of the definitions of "person" is "human being". Human beings exist around you, frumder, and you do not share their subjective experience, as that is private and inviolate. ie: your experiences are similar in kind, but not the same experiences. All you can experience of other human beings is their existence as objective entities: objects: bodies that take up space and obviously exist. And yet any human being you perceive in your immediate environment is a "person", as much as you are, albeit you cannot experience their subjective experience of themselves.

You have to step outside yourself, and learn to be objective. But, you seem to be a person so mired, so deeply entrenched, in subjectivity, that it might be nearly impossible to reach you.

 

[untermensche]

All is subjective.

There is no objective viewpoint.

The self is all anybody really knows.

The only information anyone has is subjective experience.

 

[WAB]

All is subjective.

There is no objective viewpoint.

Bull dinky.

If you go into a crowded supermarket, you will see dozens of people milling about. You cannot experience them as they experience themselves, and yet you can (and manifestly should) recognize them as human beings. In fact, your recognition of them as living, experiencing entities should be equal to the recognition of yourself as an experiencing, living entity. Not partial, but equal.

That's what objectivity means. Perhaps you are as much a subjectivist as fromderinside?

 

[untermensche]

All is subjective.

There is no objective viewpoint.

Bull dinky.

Tell me about something that is not something you have experienced or are experiencing right now.

 

[WAB]

All is subjective.

There is no objective viewpoint.

Bull dinky.

Tell me about something that is not something you have experienced or are experiencing right now.

Oh gee, gosh, Oh I dunno, um...

How about World War I?

Are you saying their is no objective proof of WWI?

 

[untermensche]

All is subjective.

There is no objective viewpoint.

Bull dinky.

If you go into a crowded supermarket, you will see dozens of people milling about. You cannot experience them as they experience themselves, and yet you can (and manifestly should) recognize them as human beings. In fact, your recognition of them as living, experiencing entities should be equal to the recognition of yourself as an experiencing, living entity. Not partial, but equal.

That's what objectivity means. Perhaps you are as much a subjectivist as fromderinside?

You are telling about things you have experienced.

I asked you to tell me about something you have not experienced.

All you have are your experiences and what you make out of them. Which is another experience.

All is experience.

There is nothing else.

Ideas are things we experience. That is the only way to know about anything.

People milling about in grocery stores are something we experience.

We experienced our parents and our childhoods and our growth through life.

So we conclude we are just apes like the other apes in the grocery store.

But all we have of the other apes are our experiences of them or of their ideas. We have nothing objective from them. If we measure their height we get an experience of seeing a number on a ruler. The ruler is an experience. If many people get the same number using the ruler we say it is objective data.

But it is all experiences and nothing else.

 

[untermensche]

Tell me about something that is not something you have experienced or are experiencing right now.

Oh gee, gosh, Oh I dunno, um...

How about World War I?

You know about it because you have experienced reading about it or experienced somebody talking about it. Or experienced a documentary about it.

Everything you know about WWI is from an experience.

You have nothing else but your experiences.

You don't seem to comprehend the question.

It can't be answered.

 

[WAB]

Tell me about something that is not something you have experienced or are experiencing right now.

Oh gee, gosh, Oh I dunno, um...

How about World War I?

You know about it because you have experienced reading about it or experienced somebody talking about it. Or experienced a documentary about it.

Everything you know about WWI is from an experience.

You have nothing else but your experiences.

You don't seem to comprehend the question.

It can't be answered.

Okay, I know where you stand now. You hold a useless philosophical position.

It's fun, sure, but silly and useless.

Have fun!

 

[WAB]

You know about it because you have experienced reading about it or experienced somebody talking about it. Or experienced a documentary about it.

Everything you know about WWI is from an experience.

You have nothing else but your experiences.

You don't seem to comprehend the question.

It can't be answered.

Okay, I know where you stand now. You hold a useless philosophical position.

It's fun, sure, but silly and useless.

Have fun!

Actually I have a bit more to ask you, Unter...

Are you saying that nothing is real except what you experience?

Not to mention, that if you are saying what it seems you are saying, it excuses unspeakable atrocities perpetrated on human beings.

I mentioned WWI, and you said:

You know about it because you have experienced reading about it or experienced somebody talking about it. Or experienced a documentary about it.

I know about it because IT HAPPENED. Yes, I had to learn about it as a human being who lived after the events: but, the reason I learned about it is because IT HAPPENED! The fact that WWI happened is objectively true! I know about it because I learned about it, but that is unimportant, and relevant only to ME.

WWI occurring is an objective fact.

My knowing about it is subjective and is unimportant, irrelevant, compared to the objective fact of it happening.

My subjective knowledge is miniscule and unimportant: subjective; the objective reality of WWI is gigantic and impactful.

 

[untermensche]

You know about it because you have experienced reading about it or experienced somebody talking about it. Or experienced a documentary about it.

Everything you know about WWI is from an experience.

You have nothing else but your experiences.

You don't seem to comprehend the question.

It can't be answered.

Okay, I know where you stand now. You hold a useless philosophical position.

It's fun, sure, but silly and useless.

Have fun!

Facts are useless to you?

OK.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying that nothing is real except what you experience?

I can't prove anything out in the world is "real". Because all I will ever have are my experiences of it and nothing more.

Not to mention, that if you are saying what it seems you are saying, it excuses unspeakable atrocities perpetrated on human beings.

I think that is nonsense.

There are already so many inexcusable atrocities already.

I know about it because IT HAPPENED.

That is your subjective belief based on your collected experiences.

 

[WAB]

I can't prove anything out in the world is "real". Because all I will ever have are my experiences of it and nothing more.



I think that is nonsense.

There are already so many inexcusable atrocities already.

I know about it because IT HAPPENED.

That is your subjective belief based on your collected experiences.

Okay, so World War I did not happen?

If I am to rely only on my own experiences, I am to believe that World War I did not happen?

Also, if nothing outside of your own experiences is real, then how do you explain your political views?

What do you care about what happens to anyone who is not you?

What I suspect is that you don't actually care about what happens to people who are not you. You don't give a shit about anyone. I cannot respect such an attitude.

Also, how do you define "atrocity". Please explain what you believe to be an atrocity. I mean, in light of the fact that there is only your subjective experience and that nothing else matters?

 

[untermensche]

I can't prove anything out in the world is "real". Because all I will ever have are my experiences of it and nothing more.



I think that is nonsense.

There are already so many inexcusable atrocities already.

I know about it because IT HAPPENED.

That is your subjective belief based on your collected experiences.

Okay, so World War I did not happen?

OK. I never said it but OK.

If I am to rely only on my own experiences, I am to believe that World War I did not happen?

Your experiences extend to what you read and hear other people say.

Also, if nothing outside of your own experiences is real, then how do you explain your political views?

This is not about "reality". This is about knowing the only thing we can know.

That we are experiencing things.

That is our only fact.

What do you care about what happens to anyone who is not you?

You're not making a valid point.

I can choose to care for many reasons.

But all I can do is experience what is created for me to experience.

What I suspect is that you don't actually care about what happens to people who are not you.

That doesn't matter to me. Your opinions about things like that are your subjective opinions.

They have no bearing on anything I believe.

You don't give a shit about anyone. I cannot respect such an attitude.

You pull wild nonsense from you ass and try to pass it off as an idea.

Nobody respects that.

Also, how do you define "atrocity".

I use standard definitions for most words.

Billions of parents that abuse their children every year and try to indoctrinate them to a religion is an atrocity.

An atrocity to the human mind.