It’s not a matter of belief, it’s a matter of what the evidence shows. It points to there being no self, and there isn’t any that indicate it’s existence. As much as I want there to be a self that exists in a unified sense I can’t ignore the science.
The only issue is how to apply that (which from everything I read to suggest the existence of a self would just be ignoring reality) to the lives we live.
You are the one that posted the question “Does the soul exist?” in Great Debates, as if there was a question you wanted to debate.
So science cannot answer your question, but you want to assert that something or another has been “proven” by some uncited “studies.”
You have not ever defined what you mean by self, meaning that this whole tussle has been a standard first year philosophy student wank. Any time a poster provides an opinion, you feel free to step back, re-(un)define what you mean by self, this time, and dismiss their view.
You have appealed to a single philosopher (because he has an essay in a science related magazine) with no actual scientific citations, based on a literary critique of one author of fiction.
You claim that “most people” have been saying something about Buddhist statements, without providing any actual references to those unidentified persons–and, more importantly, no reference to the actual statements of any Buddhists.
I have no problem with first year philosophy students mucking about in a search for what is, but it is rather rude to come post arguments on a message board when one has not even defined the terms (even to oneself) that one intends to argue over.
Typo? Or does he also have a thread on the existence of the soul that I have missed?
Sorry about the delay-meeting ran late.
It was a typo.
If the self doesn’t exist, then who (or what) cares? If it’s an illusion, who’s being duped?
I already said you fell for the introspection illusion, there’s no need to keep showing me how you keep doing so.
I’m sorry, how, exactly, is this an explication of the term “register of human perception”? And what about all the other concepts I highlighted?
Bro! Do you even debate, bro?
No, they don’t. The concepts work just as well with plural personalities such as ourselves.
Argument by assertion. I counter it thus: “Mu”
No, they don’t.
I’ll add “simply” to the list along with “subjectivity”, shall I?
Selves may be plural, but they are delineated and distinctive pluralities. Hence they may be treated as apt subjects for the concepts involved in arguments of authenticity.
Processes and acts are real things. Unless your definition of “real” is as idiosyncratic as your definition of “subjectivity”, in which case you’re not even talking the same language as the rest of us.
Dennett would disagree. So do I.
There is "one"plurality. That suffices.
Mmmm, how to distinguish the illusion of happiness from real happiness, that’s a tough one…
No, it isn’t. I’m happy, and existentialism made me so. And that’s by accepting reality,
not ignoring it.
Newsflash: responding differently to a fact of reality is not “ignoring” it, it’s just “responding differently”. Your way, which is clearly not making you happy, is not the way I choose.
Hows or whys of what, precisely?
My purpose in this thread is hardly to be of value to you.
Given the lack of substance and “evidence” that you have provided, thus far, (one philosopher out of context as referenced by one literary critic speaking of one novelist), your statement is just funny.
However, your snide remarks are out of line in this forum.
Dial it back.
[ /Moderating ]
That’s not a bridge, it’s nothing more than a collection of steel and concrete, spanning a river!
Almost anything can be broken down into its constituent parts. Are you saying that only irreducible things are real?
I have to say, your assessment is extremely inaccurate (unless you can point out what exactly I got wrong except maybe the Ligotti thing), but I have to admit it is pretty funny. I actually laughed, it was a good turnabout from a previous thread. golf clap
I have decided that when Machinaforce says “person” he means “three-headed elephant with pink and purple polka dots”. I will continue to hold this belief until he actually says what he thinks the damn word means.
Also, by this definition, I will certainly agree that humans aren’t people.
(And before you ask what ‘people’ has to do with ‘self’, I have no real idea. But he seems convinced that because people aren’t ‘people’, that somehow invalidates the idea of ‘self’ (a word that’s also not well defined here).)
I’m right here. Or am I?
Apparently no one and nothing. It’s no ones illusion and no one is being fooled.
It’s not philosophy so much as neuroscience. As someone pointed out earlier in the thread the philosopher I used works with neurologists who have confirmed the fact.
https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2
But the prevailing notion is that the self that we think exists is just a narrative created from all the things that happen in life. It doesn’t exist as a separate or unified entity, but is an illusion
It means that people are more like robots or machines performing tasks instead of the characters that we follow, love, and befriend. The character that we believe to be reality doesn’t exist, they are just a collection of mental processes that we cobble into one.
The plurality of “nothing” is still nothing. The self does not exist, so there can’t be multiples of it. Not to mention you haven’t given any proof of multiple selves you just assume they exist.
Authencity and bad faith require a self to exist in order to be applicable. Without one they are just meaningless terms and a failed attempt at existentialists to give life some sort of value (even though if a self did exist, authenticity doesn’t give value or meaning nor make like worthwhile. I believe someone said existentialism digs itself a hole and spends the rest of the time wandering in that hole).
I recognize that it’s easy to just say things are wrong, but you don’t explain why. So what’s the point in replying if one doesn’t eleborate. Just saying something is so doesn’t make it so.
You call my points argument by assertion but that’s the pot calling the kettle black in this case.
Having read the first part of that link (stopping when it seemed to stop talking about definitions and switched to details), I think the problem is that the author is using an arbitrary and baldly disingenuous definition of “illusion”, twisting its meaning beyond all reason. (An unsurprising development from the sort of jerk who redefines the terms “I” and “me” to mean different things.) Since I presume you’re not trying to be baldly disingenuous, I’m going to assume that reading him has confused and misled you.
His poorly-defined definition of “illusion” appears to be something like “something that is created within the brain and is not [currently] possible to observe externally, so long as we ignore all the obvious proofs that is there.”
The “self” - that is, the specific mental operation which generates self-awareness, would appear to match that dodgy definition. But that doesn’t mean anything. Because, despite the fact it’s a product of the mind, the self is quite clearly real, because cogito ergo sum. Nothing this dude has written, and nothing science has proven, has contradicted with cogito ergo sum. Nothing has disproven the self.
Certainly not this jackhole, who’s just twisting definitions to be able to say something that sounds incredible to sell books.
Now, independent of this jackhole and and his alleged interpretations of science, do you have an actual definition of “person” and “self” that you understand, and which you can explain to us? If you do, and if along with those definitions you have some kind of argument to show that we who are self-aware actually aren’t, then there might be something to discuss.
Okay, now I’ve seen this.
Why are you robophobic?
What is it about a robot that disqualifies it from being a person?
I’m not actually kidding here. What qualities does a person have that a robot lacks?
Because if you’re talking about a distinction without a difference, then I’m going to slap you with the transitive property of equality to prove that if a person is real and can have a self, a robot can too.
Again with the “just”! People are collections of mental processes that are cobbled into characters. OK, I’ll buy that. Were does the "just " come in? It’s like Human Action said above. That’s not a bridge, it’s just a collection of steel girders and concrete over a river that enables vehicles to cross back and forth. Break apart all the girders and concrete and where’s the bridge? It’s not there anymore, so it was never there! Bridges are fake!
Honestly, the very strong vibe I’m getting here is that he thinks only spectral souls are real people. And since indestructible indivisible nonphysical souls (that have no internal mechanisms or thoughts whatsoever to complicate things) don’t exist, neither do people. Whereas I’m perfectly copacetic with the fact that people’s minds arise from physical brain activity - besides being the stance that science unilaterally and unwaveringly supports, it also has the huge bonus that minds are based in something real.