From a zen point of view there is no such thing as a “you” which is stable and abiding. All things are flow, like the wind; thus, you are an entirely different entity from moment to moment. It is your bundle of attachments (aka karma) which give you the illusion that you are continuous.
The basis of Buddhism/Hinduism arises from the fractal emergences of the Universe. Like pyrrthon1 said, there is no distinct self apart from the Universe.
Self is not an illusion. Who would it be fooling?
Children coming into this world as non-“blanks” is not proof of anything other than the fact that they come into this world as equipped as possible just like a moth or a bee would.
This whole idea of using bodies for learning purposes is nothing more than a wild guess (a bad one, I’d say). How come people don’t lose their bodies or forget them at the house when they’re running late for work?
I just used that as a example, the well is much deeper.
There are children who somehow know a language they have never been exposed to, remember when they lived before, remember their pre-birth situation, and other very interesting things. I remember trying to walk, holding on to the door facings, pulling myself up and thinking: “I didn’t have to do this before, where I came from I could walk really good.” I kept searching in the house for this place I came from.
Some children have unseen playmates, know information about the future, etc.
One of the children lost in the Oklahoma City bombing, asked your mother a week before if she (her mother) would be sad if she (the child) died. The mother replied “yes I would be very sad.” The child looked up at her and said “mother don’t be sad.” This story was told by the mother after the death of the child in the bombing.
As for being self-aware, a person is always self-aware. There is not time you do no know that you are you.
http://www.aleroy.com/board39.htm
http://www.aleroy.com/board104.htm
http://www.aleroy.com/board165.htm
Please don’t come back with that irrational science doctrine that all personal stories are lies. If you don’t accept them, it is ok.
Love
Forgot about the “hardwired” statement.
A long time ago I read about an experiment to determine what language a child would speak if there was no interference from the environment.
They put the child in a closed room and didn’t speak around it for years, well the child spoke no language at all. Not hard to understand.
We humans are not hardwired for anything.
Love
That was not Chomsky’s point. Really, you should try to read up on his work, very fascinating. Briefly, his point is that human brains are hardwired for language (specifically, a certain grammar or syntax), not with it.
A question for anyone who seeks to divorce “self”, “consciousness” or any other ‘mind-based’ entity from the physical (ie. a “pattern of atoms”).
How do you explain the effect of certain atoms (eg. alcohol, THC, LSD etc.) on those entities?
The same way you do any brain damage. Alcohol is a poison, so are other drugs, they stop, slow down, or block the normal functions of the brain, so the spirit can no longer control the body properly.
Have you ever seen the brain of an alcoholic of many years, part of it is black and shriveled up.
Love
Sorry, gotta disagree. A good example is during the non-REM (non-dreaming) stage of sleep. There may be some sort of unconscious awareness during the stage, but no conscious self-awareness.
Your “irrational science” statement is bizarre - science is based on rationality. While I can appreciate your belief in reincarnation (from your previous posts), it still doesn’t address the problem of self-hood. If I was Napoleon in a previous life (along with other people), then which is the “true” me? All of them? Some of them? None of them? If I strip away all the experiences I have had over numerous lives, what am I left with?
erislover is spot on - humans are most definitely hardwired with a capacity for language, not with a specific language.
What ‘self is an illusion’ means is that the self is a transiently sustained emergence. There’s no static and separate underlying entity in a 1 to 1 correspondence with the emergent physical manifestation.
You complicate things far too much, doesn’t an actor know who he is while playing different parts, of course. I always know who I am in dreams of all kinds. The spiritual self never sleeps, has no need to, so that is why we dream. We are really engaged in other activity.
I would love to see your proof of any hardwiring for anything.
“This is a project born of frustration, basically. For many years, all of us who study brain structure and function have struggled with the fact that no two brains are the same — not in shape or size and certainly not in function,” said Dr. John Mazziotta of the International Consortium for Brain Mapping, based at the University of California, Los Angeles. “But how different they were and how to compare them was not known.”
Science, like any other artificial culture made-up by man is not perfect. It has it’s contradictions and irrational beliefs. One of those beliefs is that the personal experience of individuals is to be considered false until proven true by science. This statement flies into the face of common sense and normal logic. But it does give science a huge advantage, namely, I don’t have to believe anything you say until you prove it. Now to show how irrational that is picture situations of great stress. If solders question the experience of their lookout they will die before truth can be found out.
The rational part of that is to accept what an individual says until he is proven wrong. Research has shown only about 15 percent of the population lie regularly. Under stess up to half will lie, but most people tell the truth as they know it. Science can not measure the personal experiences of individuals, and talk about extraordinary experiences need extraordinary proof, who is to determine what is extraordinary. Spiritual experiences have been reported for centuries, far longer than science has existed.
Love
And it appears you are simplifying things to the point of absurdity. An actor is pretending to be someone else, not claiming that he/she IS that person. Although a claim could be made that an actor gets so involved in a role that they actually do lose a sense of their “normal” selves; in fact, that could be said for other activities as well. Who hasn’t had the experience of being totally engaged/absorbed in an activity where a person’s selfhood/activity boundary disappears (I have had the experience quite a few times). There’s quite an extensive literature pertaining to the phenomenon - all within the realms of science (psychology).
You haven’t addressed my claim - I’m not talking about the dream-state in sleep. I’m talking about the non-REM stage of sleep. When I see evidence that someone can at will be able to demonstrate self-awareness during this phase of sleep, then I’ll be more likely to concede the point that self-awareness is present at all times.
Read the stuff by Chomsky in linguistics. Granted, his thesis isn’t an air-tight case and it is still being debated within the discipline. But his reasoning is sound and anyone who wishes to develop an alternative theory has to address the issues covered in his theory.
Science doesn’t claim to be perfect. In fact, that’s the strength of science - it’s ability and willingness to change in the face of the evidence. If science has any contradictions, then they are eventually rooted out. And I have no idea what you are referring to when you state that science has irrational beliefs. Again, science is the hallmark of rationality (we can leave the discussion/debate on what constitutes rationaly for another day).
No - rather, science doesn’t take personal experience as face value. It requires additional evidence to corroborate the experience. And science sometimes has nothing to do with common sense - if it did we would still think that the sun revolves around the earth (and not vice versa).
Precisely - because that’s the strength of science. You marshall as much eveidence as possible and draw conclusions based on that evidence. Emphasis is placed on evidence that can be verivied empiracally and can be tested repeatedly under certain constraints.
I have no idea what point you’re getting at here. Science is a process in establishing truth - or more importantly, in establishing an understanding of the empircal world. If I am a soldier and placed in a stressful situation where I might die, I’m certainly not going to be concerned with the “truth” of my experience at that moment in time - I’m going to be occupied with staying alive.
So if 15% of the population lie regularly, how do I determine 1) if someone is telling the truth if I don’t know whether you are that 15% of the population who lies regularly or not; 2) if you are someone who tells the truth most of the time, but have decided at this moment to lie to me? What to I do to protect myself from being lied to?
I’m going to give you a little scenario and I want you to see if you and I can come to a meeting of minds of sorts. If I were to make the following statement - “lekatt, based on my personal experience, you are a complete and total idiot” would you agree that this is a truthful statement? Would you be able to accept my statement at face value, or would you doubt it? If you doubt it, why? If the above statement is true (for me), and it is not true (for you), then how do we determine which of us is telling the truth? Either my experience is true, your experience is true, or neither is true - they cannot both be true.
I should point out that an assumption underlying the above statement was that it was made in all truthfulness and under no duress (stress).
Oh, I don’t answer posts that are personal attacks on me. If you really want an answer reword your post. I have pledged to forgive, but don’t want to become a door mat for the skeptics who have no real arguments.
Love
Define “me”.
If you feel I have attacked you personally, then I apologize. However, the statement was intended to make you feel a bit uncomfortable. In other words, if I make a truth claim based on my personal experience that somehow conflicts with truth claims based on your personal experience, how does one determine which truth claims are valid/legitimate? If you were to tell me that “eponymous, based on my experience, you are an utter ass” and I counter with “no, lekatt, you are mistaken; I am not an utter ass”, then how do we determine which of us is telling the truth (or which experience is more truthful - mine or yours)?
**eponymous[/v], much as I admire your desire to eradicate ignorance, I fear you are wasting your time. lekatt has had the concepts of falsifiability and burden of proof explained to him on at least literally 25 occasions and showed no indication whatsoever that he understood them. One particularly forgettable attempt lasted 36 pages.
Only in the same way that a rainbow is an ‘illusion’: perhaps a better phrase would be that the apparent characteristics of ‘self’ can be explained by simpler entities.
I have never said opinions were anything other than opinions, I was taking about personal experiences which are not opinions but actual events.
Love
Whose talking about opinions? If you have a personal experience and wish to convey said personal experience to someone else, what do you do? If you have an out-of-the-body experience and tell me about it, am I justified in dismissing it as “mere opinion?” Should I accept you telling me of your out-of-the-body experence at face-value? What if, based on my own personal experience, that an out-of-the-body experience is unlikely? How does one reconcile your personal experience with my personal experience? Is your experience true and valid and mine mistaken? If so, then who or what determines the truth/validity of your experience?
SentientMeat,
I suspect you may be right, but I’m game (at least for a bit while longer)…
When I tell you my personal experience, no matter what it is, you have three choices. (1) accept it at face value, (2) reject it as unbelievable, (3) file it away until more information can be gathered.
You do not have the right to say my personal experience is false. You can’t possible know this, saying so is irrational. I am so frustrated at so-called scientists who say NDEs, are illusions or some other non-real thing, when they have no experience whatsoever to say so. They show their ignorance.
You said before:
“You haven’t addressed my claim - I’m not talking about the dream-state in sleep. I’m talking about the non-REM stage of sleep. When I see evidence that someone can at will be able to demonstrate self-awareness during this phase of sleep, then I’ll be more likely to concede the point that self-awareness is present at all times.”
It is at this stage one is completely self-aware, the body is silenced, only the self is present.
http://www.dailystar.com/dailystar/dailystar/24289.php
Maybe this will help some.
Love