The Illusion of Self

[untermensche]

Conscious mind is the experience.

No, the conscious mind is aware of color and sound and touch and taste.

The experiences are not the thing that experiences.

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

If I experience red I am not red. I am not the thing experienced (red).

I am that which can experience red.

 

[untermensche]

I'm pretty sure the appearance of self-other predated the rise of vision. I'm pinning my wagers on chemical processes such as detecting useful and harmful molecules. That opens the door to across membrane transport and differentiation. There needs to be some sort of distinguisher of what is me and what is other. Once that marker has been established it is a simple matter to apply it to whatever is sensed. The code could be as simple as evidence from which cell accompanying the message outside to the information being processed.

The majestic orchestration of self-other follows in due course out of necessity for surviving without consuming oneself.

'Detecting' is not experiencing.

'Reacting to' is not experiencing.

'Being stimulated by' is not experiencing.

Experiencing is something we don't understand in the least.

 

[DBT]

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

If I experience red I am not red. I am not the thing experienced (red).

I am that which can experience red.

Experience is multifaceted.

 

[untermensche]

That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense.

If I experience red I am not red. I am not the thing experienced (red).

I am that which can experience red.

Experience is multifaceted.

It is the same self that experiences pain and pleasure and fatigue and joy and color and sound and taste and touch.

There are many things a singular self can experience.

But a self is a living thing. A biological entity. It grows and is changed by experiences.

 

[DBT]

Experience is multifaceted.

It is the same self that experiences pain and pleasure and fatigue and joy and color and sound and taste and touch.

There are many things a singular self can experience.

But a self is a living thing. A biological entity. It grows and is changed by experiences.

There is no experience without electrochemical brain activity. There is no homunculus.

 

[Angry Floof]

A self isn't a thing. It's better described as a process, or more accurately, myriad processes coming together and giving rise to a phenomenon of consciousness, beginning in the womb and changing constantly until the physical structures that give rise to it are no more.

 

[untermensche]

Experience is multifaceted.

It is the same self that experiences pain and pleasure and fatigue and joy and color and sound and taste and touch.

There are many things a singular self can experience.

But a self is a living thing. A biological entity. It grows and is changed by experiences.

There is no experience without electrochemical brain activity. There is no homunculus.

This is definitional. No science can negate it. All science can do is try to explain it.

To experience requires that which can experience. In the case of humans it is commonly called the subjective mind. The word "mind" is a placeholder because we are a subjective mind attached to a body but we don't know what a mind is. We only know that we experience all kinds of things.

How that mind arises is unknown. There is an association with brain activity but there is no understanding of how the activity of cells can lead to a subjective mind that experiences.

We have no model to show how cells could create the ability of a mind to experience.

 

[DBT]

Mind/brain duality is a religious belief. Mind is generated by brain matter and activity.

 

[untermensche]

A self isn't a thing. It's better described as a process, or more accurately, myriad processes coming together and giving rise to a phenomenon of consciousness, beginning in the womb and changing constantly until the physical structures that give rise to it are no more.

A process may create it but it is a "thing".

If you have an ability you must be a "thing".

The self is a "thing" that can experience.

 

[DBT]

A self isn't a thing. It's better described as a process, or more accurately, myriad processes coming together and giving rise to a phenomenon of consciousness, beginning in the womb and changing constantly until the physical structures that give rise to it are no more.

A process may create it but it is a "thing".

If you have an ability you must be a "thing".

The self is a "thing" that can experience.

Selfhood is an activity of a brain.

 

[untermensche]

Mind/brain duality is a religious belief.

No it isn't.

Who told you that?

 

[Angry Floof]

A self isn't a thing. It's better described as a process, or more accurately, myriad processes coming together and giving rise to a phenomenon of consciousness, beginning in the womb and changing constantly until the physical structures that give rise to it are no more.

A process may create it but it is a "thing".

If you have an ability you must be a "thing".

The self is a "thing" that can experience.

It's just that it's not useful to think of a self as a thing if you're trying to gain a deeper understanding of a sense of self. Consciousness, awareness, sense of self, it's all very illusory and complex. If you don't want to explore such ideas and challenge the mundane, delusional narrative we all inevitably form around a sense of self and personhood (regardless of how useful the delusion is in getting along in the world), then fine, it does no harm to call it a thing. That's well in line with what any child would agree with. It just goes nowhere in terms of challenging what we understand about human experience.

 

[untermensche]

A self isn't a thing. It's better described as a process, or more accurately, myriad processes coming together and giving rise to a phenomenon of consciousness, beginning in the womb and changing constantly until the physical structures that give rise to it are no more.

A process may create it but it is a "thing".

If you have an ability you must be a "thing".

The self is a "thing" that can experience.

Selfhood is an activity of a brain.

A creation of brain activity more precisely.

 

[untermensche]

A self isn't a thing. It's better described as a process, or more accurately, myriad processes coming together and giving rise to a phenomenon of consciousness, beginning in the womb and changing constantly until the physical structures that give rise to it are no more.

A process may create it but it is a "thing".

If you have an ability you must be a "thing".

The self is a "thing" that can experience.

It's just that it's not useful to think of a self as a thing if you're trying to gain a better understanding of a sense of self. Consciousness, awareness, sense of self, it's all very illusory and complex. If you don't want to explore such ideas and challenge the mundane, delusional narrative we all inevitably form around a sense of self and personhood (regardless of how useful the delusion is in getting along in the world),, then fine, it does no harm to call it a thing. That's well in line with what any child would agree with. It just goes nowhere in terms of challenging what we understand about human experience.

If the same "thing" experiences all things then it is absurd to not talk about a "thing".

 

[Angry Floof]

It's just that it's not useful to think of a self as a thing if you're trying to gain a better understanding of a sense of self. Consciousness, awareness, sense of self, it's all very illusory and complex. If you don't want to explore such ideas and challenge the mundane, delusional narrative we all inevitably form around a sense of self and personhood (regardless of how useful the delusion is in getting along in the world),, then fine, it does no harm to call it a thing. That's well in line with what any child would agree with. It just goes nowhere in terms of challenging what we understand about human experience.

If the same "thing" experiences all things then it is absurd to not talk about a "thing".

I would like to make a friendly reading recommendation, The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger.

 

[untermensche]

It's just that it's not useful to think of a self as a thing if you're trying to gain a better understanding of a sense of self. Consciousness, awareness, sense of self, it's all very illusory and complex. If you don't want to explore such ideas and challenge the mundane, delusional narrative we all inevitably form around a sense of self and personhood (regardless of how useful the delusion is in getting along in the world),, then fine, it does no harm to call it a thing. That's well in line with what any child would agree with. It just goes nowhere in terms of challenging what we understand about human experience.

If the same "thing" experiences all things then it is absurd to not talk about a "thing".

I would like to make a friendly reading recommendation, The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger.

OK.

The self is more than experience. It is an individual way to experience. And the self grows and changes. And the self can be severely damaged and even replaced by a diseased self.

If you understand what it means to want to make a good impression you know the self very well.

 

[DBT]

Selfhood is an activity of a brain.

A creation of brain activity more precisely.

There is no separation. Brain activity is part and parcel and function of a brain. There is no mind/consciousness when a brain ceases to be functional.

 

[untermensche]

Selfhood is an activity of a brain.

A creation of brain activity more precisely.

There is no separation. Brain activity is part and parcel and function of a brain. There is no mind/consciousness when a brain ceases to be functional.

Sure there is separation.

I experience green.

I am not green and green is not me.

Separation.

 

[Angry Floof]

I would like to make a friendly reading recommendation, The Ego Tunnel by Thomas Metzinger.

OK.

The self is more than experience. It is an individual way to experience. And the self grows and changes. And the self can be severely damaged and even replaced by a diseased self.

Which fits my suggested definition well.

If you understand what it means to want to make a good impression you know the self very well.

Making a good impression is about ego. Is your self more than ego? Is self image or the need to be acceptable the definition of self?

 

[untermensche]

Making a good impression is about ego.

It is about so many things. It is about understanding something about what might impress others. It is about a situation where impressing others can occur and is desirable.

But it is an expression of a self.

"I" want to make a good impression.

Ego is self-love.

If you think ego exists then so does the self.