The Illusion of Self

[DBT]

So?

So self is a part and parcel of brain generated experience.

The only question is whether the self is a real distinct "entity".

And it is.

I (the self) have experiences, am aware of them.

I am not an experience.

There you go, there is your implied homunculus, your implied entity that is distinct from the very experience that forms all facets of consciousness. It's a fallacy that was discredited long ago, yet still being trotted out.

 

[DBT]

For a start, no doubt a waste of time, my use of homunculus is not literally a little man inside your head, rather, it refers to your implied separation between self and experience, a self experiencing as if the self itself is separate from what is being experienced instead of being part and parcel of the faceted nature of experience.

Yes. You absurdly call reality a homunculus so you don't have to look at it.

Consciousness is ONE THING being conscious of OTHER THINGS.

Awareness is ONE THING being aware of OTHER THINGS.

Experience is ONE THING experiencing OTHER THINGS.

This is not in doubt in any way.

Nope, it is you who imply a distinct entity operating within the brain, not only without evidence but in the face of all evidence to the contrary....which tells us that self awareness is the work of the brain as an facet of consciousness. An experience of self acting consciously as a facet of conscious mind.

 

[untermensche]

The only question is whether the self is a real distinct "entity".

And it is.

I (the self) have experiences, am aware of them.

I am not an experience.

There you go, there is your implied homunculus, your implied entity that is distinct from the very experience that forms all facets of consciousness. It's a fallacy that was discredited long ago, yet still being trotted out.

I do not accept your absurd notion that a separation between that which experiences from that which it experiences implies an homunculus.

Your hand waving that it does is a mere unsupported claim.

To experience requires a separation.

It requires something (not a homunculus, a consciousness) that CAN experience things.

And it requires the things that consciousness can possibly experience.

If there is experience then this separation exists. It must exist.

And there is no doubt. I do experience.

I am experiencing a desperate and bad argument from you now.

 

[untermensche]

For a start, no doubt a waste of time, my use of homunculus is not literally a little man inside your head, rather, it refers to your implied separation between self and experience, a self experiencing as if the self itself is separate from what is being experienced instead of being part and parcel of the faceted nature of experience.

Yes. You absurdly call reality a homunculus so you don't have to look at it.

Consciousness is ONE THING being conscious of OTHER THINGS.

Awareness is ONE THING being aware of OTHER THINGS.

Experience is ONE THING experiencing OTHER THINGS.

This is not in doubt in any way.

Nope, it is you who imply a distinct entity operating within the brain, not only without evidence but in the face of all evidence to the contrary....which tells us that self awareness is the work of the brain as an facet of consciousness. An experience of self acting consciously as a facet of conscious mind.

There is an entity. A mind. A self. A consciousness.

Only fools deny this.

With their minds.

 

[fromderinside]

I take issue with your use of thing which has material roots in a manner giving false objectivity to the existence of outcomes from on going processes.

I took definition 5. for experience from Marriam Webster to make my point.

the act or process of directly perceiving events or reality

So I could get you to understand why I use perceive

to become aware of through the senses

Notice there is a material link supporting what one means by ones use of subjective descriptive term experience. It isn't an entity. It is an awareness of sensation arising form stimulation of receptors which in turn pass information on to other areas in the CNS for specific processing which produces what one calls awareness, thence experience. Experience is the grab bag term people use to relate what they perceive.

Similar analyses work for subjective labels such as mind, self, consciousness. You are, in essence, reifying process for object. None of the terms are material they are all subjective.

One cannot, through some statistical or linguistic trick objectify such terms any more than one can make intervals of ordinal data. IOW two subjective do not make an objective.

Actually one comes closer to realizing such change when one deals with ordinal scale to interval scale techniques since characterization of material bases underlie both measures. We do not know the bases for getting from stimulus to experience beyond it takes place through processes in the nervous system. That statement is not material characterization. We need to determine material basis for the processes first. Human Factors Engineers and Ethologists have been at this task since Darwin.

If you are interested you can check out what we know about  Saltatory conduction since the convenient fiction of  Synapse was introduced by Charles Sherrington in 1897.

 

[untermensche]

...It is an awareness of sensation arising form stimulation of receptors...

Awareness is always some thing aware of some other thing.

I am aware.

There is not just awareness.

There is me too.

 

[DBT]

The only question is whether the self is a real distinct "entity".

And it is.

I (the self) have experiences, am aware of them.

I am not an experience.

There you go, there is your implied homunculus, your implied entity that is distinct from the very experience that forms all facets of consciousness. It's a fallacy that was discredited long ago, yet still being trotted out.

I do not accept your absurd notion that a separation between that which experiences from that which it experiences implies an homunculus.

Your hand waving that it does is a mere unsupported claim.

To experience requires a separation.

It requires something (not a homunculus, a consciousness) that CAN experience things.

And it requires the things that consciousness can possibly experience.

If there is experience then this separation exists. It must exist.

And there is no doubt. I do experience.

I am experiencing a desperate and bad argument from you now.

You imply separation even while you deny it.

If you agree that self is a part and parcel of brain generated experience, that self is a brain generated experience, what is your point?

 

[DBT]

Nope, it is you who imply a distinct entity operating within the brain, not only without evidence but in the face of all evidence to the contrary....which tells us that self awareness is the work of the brain as an facet of consciousness. An experience of self acting consciously as a facet of conscious mind.

There is an entity. A mind. A self. A consciousness.

Only fools deny this.

With their minds.

Another Strawman, the issue here is the nature of mind, consciousness and self.

Lay it on the line as clearly and concisely as possible: what do you believe is the nature and role of self?

 

[untermensche]

I do not accept your absurd notion that a separation between that which experiences from that which it experiences implies an homunculus.

Your hand waving that it does is a mere unsupported claim.

To experience requires a separation.

It requires something (not a homunculus, a consciousness) that CAN experience things.

And it requires the things that consciousness can possibly experience.

If there is experience then this separation exists. It must exist.

And there is no doubt. I do experience.

I am experiencing a desperate and bad argument from you now.

You imply separation even while you deny it.

If you agree that self is a part and parcel of brain generated experience, that self is a brain generated experience, what is your point?

I don't imply. I state absolutely there is a separation between the conscious mind and all it experiences.

There must be.

And it is not a little man.

It is a mind.

You don't want to accept that a mind experiences blue. It experiences all things. That is reality.

Sorry.

 

[untermensche]

Nope, it is you who imply a distinct entity operating within the brain, not only without evidence but in the face of all evidence to the contrary....which tells us that self awareness is the work of the brain as an facet of consciousness. An experience of self acting consciously as a facet of conscious mind.

There is an entity. A mind. A self. A consciousness.

Only fools deny this.

With their minds.

Another Strawman, the issue here is the nature of mind, consciousness and self.

Lay it on the line as clearly and concisely as possible: what do you believe is the nature and role of self?

What does your experience of your self tell you?

Self talk is the greatest use of language.

 

[none]

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.

View attachment 26166

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

aren't you conflating self and consciousness?

 

[untermensche]

What is the difference between the self or the consciousness or the mind?

They are all talking about the same thing.

The subjective experience.

The "I" in the idea that "I" see the rabbit, or "I" am hungry, or "I" didn't sleep well, or "I" don't like spinach.

 

[none]

What is the difference between the self or the consciousness or the mind?

They are all talking about the same thing.

The subjective experience.

The "I" in the idea that "I" see the rabbit, or "I" am hungry, or "I" didn't sleep well, or "I" don't like spinach.

draw a picture of yourself, then draw a picture of your consciousness?
have you read the OP?
geesh
I even quoted the OP.

 

[untermensche]

That is mere language.

Draw your body and draw your mind.

People can do one. Not the other.

The mind is not part of the body.

The mind experiences the body.

 

[none]

That is mere language.

Draw your body and draw your mind.

People can do one. Not the other.

The mind is not part of the body.

The mind experiences the body.

yeah, I analyzed the language
seems like the OP post conflates self and consciousness
are you going to draw a dot as a representation of yourself or not?

 

[untermensche]

That is mere language.

Draw your body and draw your mind.

People can do one. Not the other.

The mind is not part of the body.

The mind experiences the body.

yeah, I analyzed the language
seems like the OP post conflates self and consciousness
are you going to draw a dot as a representation of yourself or not?

After you tell me where exactly it is where you experience happiness.

 

[none]

That is mere language.

Draw your body and draw your mind.

People can do one. Not the other.

The mind is not part of the body.

The mind experiences the body.

yeah, I analyzed the language
seems like the OP post conflates self and consciousness
are you going to draw a dot as a representation of yourself or not?

After you tell me where exactly it is where you experience happiness.

I could tell you but if I drew a picture it might be a better representation
seeing how useless words are with you

 

[untermensche]

After you tell me where exactly it is where you experience happiness.

I could tell you but if I drew a picture it might be a better representation
seeing how useless words are with you

A picture is a forced subjective guess.

There is no known location.

The self experiences blue and the song of a bird and the warmth of the sun and happiness.

But it does not experience the self.

 

[none]

After you tell me where exactly it is where you experience happiness.

I could tell you but if I drew a picture it might be a better representation
seeing how useless words are with you

A picture is a forced subjective guess.

There is no known location.

The self experiences blue and the song of a bird and the warmth of the sun and happiness.

But it does not experience the self.

meh, speak a thousand words about this.

 

[untermensche]

The brain creates the experience of pain but the pain in the foot is experienced as being in the foot.

The brain creates the experience of vision but the table is experienced as being out there, not in the brain.

The brain creates the experience of sound but the sound is experienced as being out there coming from the person's mouth.

This projection of experience is also an aspect of experience. An aspect of the self.

And it can't be explained as a mere response or reflex.