The self: an Urban Legend?

Great Debates
1

It’s something we all take for granted: the existence of a separate entity we call our self. But who has actually seen a “self”? Has it ever been quantifiably measured in any sense?

We supposedly see the results of a self in the actions of individuals, but do we really need to posit a “self” to explain their (or our) actions?
We all experience thought of course and from that many of us extrapolate that a self must be responsible (I think therefore I am). But this is not really necessary. “I think therefore thought exists” is a simpler way of looking at things. Isn’t positing a creator of thought similar to positing a creator of the universe?

In both occasions a more complex explanation is given to a process that is not thoroughly understood. Explaining the phenomenon of thought processes seems easier than explaining a creator of the thought processes, which exists primarily in thought, yet somehow creates itself independent of the thought. In other words, the thought of a self is easier to explain than a self that thinks. The self is merely a thought, a perception, yet another symbol in a long line of symbols that passes through our heads each day.

By way of Occam’s razor, shouldn’t a skeptic deny the existence of the self?

2

Well, if there is no “self” then there is no “selflessness” either.

How depressing is that?

3

At first I didn’t catch you drift. By selflessness I assume you mean great acts of compassion that sacrifice the interests of the self for the good of others.
Those acts would still happen and would be just as meaningful although the perspective on them is different.

Just so folks know, I’m not as skeptical as my OP might suggest. I still like to use the word “I” and find the self to be a very useful concept in relating to people. But I think the question of the self is important for cognitive science and philosophy and hence is worthy of proof and discussion.

4

Looked in a mirror. Saw Self. Put Self on scale, weighed 220 lbs.

Measured Self’s height. 67 inches.

There you go.
Seen and measured.

5

Speak for your self!

6

The conception of self isn’t always so obvious. Does it end at our perception? Does it extend to our physical parts? Does it extend to tools we are using as an extension of our physical parts?

If I had a brain in a vat hooked up to radio transmitters which transmitted to receivers in a body and controlled a body as such, would it be my body? What about hypothetical transmitters which put out information instantaneously? (Some of you may have read this little short story by Daniel Dennett called “Where am I?”)

If the self isn’t an urban legend it is an awful hard thing to find. Neuroscience hasn’t seemed to locate it. I’m not even going to qualify that with “yet” as that would assume it exists to be found, something I am also skeptical about.

7

But if you weigh and observe your “self” tomorrow it will be different. A pound more. Maybe a little shorter, or taller, depending on how old you are. A new zit. Different thoughts. Many molecules gone, many different ones in their places.

So why does this evermorphing collection of materials warrant an identity of “self” that is consistent?
(My own take is that it has to do with self-referentiality. The identity is constantly observing the changes and updating its meaning of “self” as that new pattern. Or as Hofstadter would put it: “strange loops.”)

8

No offense meant, but if you died couldn’t someone make the same measurements of your “self”? If not, what changed when you died that would make your body no longer your self? Can you quantify that change?

9

Furthermore, you “remember” weighing yourself, but can you be sure that memory wasn’t implanted?

10

The nature of consciousness a puzzle.

That said, I note that it appears to me that I directly observe a set of thoughts that I choose to call my own. Other people’s thoughts I observe only indirectly.

If the set of thoughts that I directly observe are not in fact created by my self, I am at a loss to explain where they originate. They don’t appear to occur at random: the thoughts within this set appear to share certain characteristics.

If I do not own this thought-bundle, what are the counter-hypotheses?

#1) The thought-bundle simply exists. Then what determines its internal structure? And how is this internal structure different from a “self”?

#2) Big-Daddy owns the thought bubble, along with many others. I interpret this theory as one type of denial of free will.
…
Nozick discussed identity at some length. Perhaps some philosophers could brief us on this subject. (I suspect that certain theologians already have. :wink: )

11

I think the “identity of ‘self’” is warranted because it is a useful from a survival standpoint. Beings that had a sense of self have tended to preserve their bodies and hence have survived and continue to experience the self. But I wonder if it’s truly a useful concept beyond that.

What is this identity that makes the observations? Do we need to have that identity or can there simply be observations and ideas of the self?

I don’t see any reason why thoughts couldn’t happen without the concept of the self. They probably will because of evolutionary pressures, but awareness, even reflexive awareness does not predicate a self.

12

For some reason, these words popped into my head which seemed to explain it all:

I am Elmer J. Fudd, millionaire. I own a mansion and a yacht.

Works for me.

13

  • Did you hear about the self from a Friend Of A Friend?

  • Do the stories you hear about the self indicate that the self has engaged in foolish (if common) behavior that is contraindicated by social mores?

  • Is there any particular story you have heard about the self in which the activities of the self have resulted in harm or embarrassment to the self (or a close call from which the self narrowly escapes harm or embarrassment)?

  • Are you most likely to have heard stories about the self retold in groups by people who speak with the Voice of Authority and Truth even though the speaker seems to have no clue as to whether the narrated events are plausible or even possible?
    If the answer to none of these questions is “True,” then the self is clearly not an Urban Legend.

The self may be a romantic notion, an autonomously deluding fiction, the construct of an overachieving act of ratiocination projected from a separate consciousness, or a niggling dream to trouble the sleep of MANA-YOOD-SUSHAI, but it is clearly NOT an Urban Legend.

“Urban Legend” is not a phrase meaning “things that are believed that may not be true.” It has a specific meaning for a specific type of human activity that follows an identifiable set of rules, both in its dissemination and its acceptance.

Please demonstrate a bit more precision in language when dealing with either the phrase “Urban Legend” or the concepts of beliefs, in general.
Thank You.

You may now return to your philosophical discussion, already in progress.
[ /hijack ]

14

In fact, it is estimated that, as our cells regenerate and our bodies change, the atoms in our bodies are replaced every seven years – and possibly in less time than that. Thus, if (if!) we claim that we are nothing more than our physical bodies, then we must conclude that we are not the same individuals we were seven years ago.

I don’t merely mean that our personalities have changed; rather, it would mean that we are not the same “selves.” So, if humans are nothing more than their physical components, we can not blame them for acts which they committed seven years ago, nor can we praise them for such.

This is just one of the reasons why I believe in [the existence of human souls](http://www.unk.edu/student_org/ccc/Assets/ Files/GotSoul-Article.pdf).

15

You need a competing model.

The self could be defined as the collection of thoughts emerging from a given human brain. That definition may or may not be useful. But at the very least it doesn’t appear to suffer from any internal contradictions.

16

I think this is one of the most interesting and original arguments I’ve seen. Materialistically, a thought is nothing more than a synaptic discharge. By defining self as Flowbark suggests (a handier definition could hardly be found), self turns out to be an analytic thing, and a synonym for consciousness.

It suggests what might be an interesting experiment. By somehow wiring one man’s thought(s) into the brain of another, will the second man hold the same interpretation(s) as the first?

Can empathy thus be practically applied? Or do prior preconceptions held by the second man guarantee a difference in interpretation, i.e., can this be done at all? Is there a one-to-one correspondence between one brain and another such that a neuron that fires in the former can be routed to the appropriate synapse in the latter?

17

There was an error in the link which I posted. Here is the correct link.

18

Anybody here watched “The Matrix”?
Its a good example of how what we percieve may not be what is. Even this perception of “SELF”.

19

Oh the conundrum of definitions.

Is “self” synonymous with “consciousness”, as Lib states is implied by flowbark’s stab at a definition?

Or is “self” a biologic construct that helps facilitate survival of, and reproduction of, a particular set of genetic codes, as implied by perspective?

What kind of self are we talking about?

Biologically “self” is different from “nonself” and making that distinction, identifying what is not part of “self”, is critical to survival of the organism. But this may have little to do with consciousness other than perhaps metaphorically and as a neurobiological meta-application.

Is an “identity of self” the same as “consciousness”? If so we are going to get nowhere fast because multiple past attempts here have made little progress in defining consciousness. (though they’ve been fun reads!) The same as “the collection of thoughts from an individual brain”? Better, I think, for how the word was intended in the op. But limited. By this definition, an AI, or any nonhuman intelligence, could never have a self-identity. Yet I suspect that my dog has some identity as a self different from me and that maintains through time.

I think, that for the purposes of the op, “self” is not a constant and is talking about “self” as used conceptually by an intelligence. It is, of necessity, a circular and reupdating definition. Self is the organism at T = T[sub]now[/sub]. At any particular moment an intelligence is at T = T[sub]now[/sub], so an intelligence always refers to that state as “self”, and that its state at T = T[sub]T- t1 [/sub]was the self then and since there was percieved continuity of the intelligent system from T-t1 to T[sub]now[/sub] it remebers that state as “self” as well.

Used in this way, is “self” a prerequisite for “consciousness”, a function of it, or synonomous with it?

I think biological “self” came first and that such a biological construct bootstraps consciousness and the higher meaning of self that consciousness allows as sufficient neurobiologic complexity evolves.

20

I’m not sure that you’ve provided a competing model. I think that DSeid had already provided a competing model that I was responding too.
Please feel free to elaborate on your definition.

I’m actually don’t have anything to disagree with calling the self “collection of thoughts emerging from a given human brain”. I do think it’s a little vague though. I could call “a collection of lumber on a foundation” a house, but that definition wouldn’t address basic questions like “does a house have walls?”

Your definition so far does not contradict my proposal that the self is simply a mental construct, a symbol, much like a number or a letter. Self awareness could simply be the manipulation of that symbol. And awareness could exist without the use of that symbol. Thus a collection of thoughts in a brain could simply be forming a new definition for the self (namely, that the self is a collection of thoughts)which is still just a symbol being manipulated in our brains.

A competing view, I think, would say that the self is more than a symbol, it is some kind of emergent property of the given thoughts inside a brain. If that is your position:what are these properties?

tomndebb,
my title was supposed to be humorous. No confusion with urban legends was intended. If there were any though, I’m sure a careful reading of your post would clear that up. Thanks :slight_smile: