The Theory OF self

[steve_bank]

A modem view on self.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology_of_self

"The psychology of self is the study of either the cognitive, conative or affective representation of one's identity or the subject of experience. The earliest formulation of the self in modern psychology derived from the distinction between the self as I, the subjective knower, and the self as Me, the object that is known.[1]

Current views of the self in psychology position the self as playing an integral part in human motivation, cognition, affect, and social identity.[2] It may be the case that we can now usefully attempt to ground experience of self in a neural process with cognitive consequences, which will give us insight into the elements of which the complex multiply situated selves of modern identity are composed.

The self has many facets that help make up integral parts of it, such as self-awareness, self-esteem, self-knowledge, and self-perception. All parts of the self enable people to alter, change, add, and modify aspects of themselves in order to gain social acceptance in society. "Probably, the best account of the origins of selfhood is that the self comes into being at the interface between the inner biological processes of the human body and the sociocultural network to which the person belongs"

It would appear self in psychology is not a totality or object. The tern refers to multiple aspects of what we are.



http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0093.xml

"The “self” is surely one of the most heavily researched areas in social and personality psychology, even if the debate continues as to whether a self truly exists. Whatever stance one adopts regarding the self’s ontological status, there is little doubt that the many phenomena of which the self is a predicate—self-knowledge, self-awareness, self-esteem, self-enhancement, self-regulation, self-deception, self-presentation—to name just a few, are indispensable research areas. Furthermore, the study of the self extends far beyond the topics that explicitly reference the term"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

"Ontology (introduced in 1606) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.[1] Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology often deals with questions concerning what entities exist or may be said to exist and how such entities may be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences. A very simple definition of ontology is that it is the examination of what is meant by 'being'.?

Psychology appears to have taken over ontology.


Does self exist?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Obviously, we're composite. There is the so-called "self", which has to be important. But there are also things like the unconscious mind and the conscious mind. There is the rational mind and something like the intuitive "personality" or "character" that contributes to what you appear to be. What is the specific role of consciousness for example? The role of the self seems more obvious. Yes, the self is made of a multiplicity of very different things, but I wouldn't say that the self includes "the multiple aspects of what we are". Rather, it seems to be a sort of DIY functional construct, like a character in a play, that serves a functional role, probably mostly in relation to our social life I would say. I don't think there's anything we're aware of that would include "the multiple aspects of what we are". There would be no use for that, I guess. We don't need to be anybody. We just need to pretend we are and then not even all the time. That's more economical like that and saving energy is the key to explain our psychology.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Energy. Before you can save it you need to know it's forms and sources. I point out in 'logic' that we need to relate energy to such as consciousness, self, etc. The only route that shows promise is through ATP and behavior systems evolution. Nothing in that requires self, consciousness, intuition, drive, etc.

Trying to reverse engineer physical systems into psychic systems just to make the ancients sound rational is, IMHO, a waste of time. Oh, by the way, I'm opposed to the notion of appropriate level of reduction for explanation unless that reduction is traceable to physics through first principles. My reasons for that are based on continuing to build through successes of for explaining design and function of other systems using physical principles and definitions. For a great introduction you might try to venture into psychophysics, optimum performance, ideal observer, and such as that.

 

[WAB]

No! Of course there is no self! Me, myself, and I know this. If I said there was a self, I'd be lying to myself, and I can't do things like that to myself!

 

[steve_bank]

The group therapy room is down the hall to the left.

 

[WAB]

Actually that would be great! I have multiple-personality disorder, so I can even make a group all by myself...er...I mean ourselves!

 

[fromderinside]

If selves were like chairs you might be on to something. Self isn't like a chair.

When talking to yourself there is no sense either.

Next.*

*^{_{I don't intend another dose of steamed heat here.}}

 

[WAB]

I don't have to read that last response. My many selves are thankful.