On the meaning and existence of "self"...

[Agrippa]

First where did I say that all Mongolids react the same way? Furthermore many factors should be considered in such cases and finally there was no typological difference made in this studies.
I really doubt that Nordsinids (f.e. Manchuria) would react the same way, but I'm open minded.

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

positing "Europids"/proto-"Europids" (wutever that means) in Japan, Manchuria, "Nordsinids", "Yakonids", and on and on.

Nordsinids are for sure a relatively pure (in the racial sense of purity) Mongolid type, Yakonids most likely too and if not just minor Europoid influence.
So dont lay words in my mouth - last 6 months I never said something like that and before that was just speculative, I always said that.

Or you can develope a proper identity and start feeling good about you as an individual, a self.

"Individual identity" is a construct anyway - ask people in the past of their "individual identity", time and life waste, nothing else. The identity of a banker, of a bitch, a transsexual or whatever, if I look at this "build identities" I have just disgust (not that I want to discredit bankers in general, just if thats their main "individual identity"). Furthermore they are not really individual in the best sense of the word, but just social reproduction of blue prints - a "pseudo-individuality" for an adapted mass society in a Liberalcapitalistic system. I prefer, if at all, real Individualism and not that cheap junk.
Most of them would have the same value if they would be pump themselves full with drugs and lay around...what might be even beneficial in individual cases.

Individual "patch work identities" and "modern life concepts" are simply crap and those "goodies" which spread that nonsense for the mass have no idea about the value and meaning of life, nor of what they are doing to these people and the group as a whole.

Your "self" is an illusion of your brain in the first place and will elapse anyway, the group and what you did might survive for some time and "individual patch work identities" which work against the good of the collective are just a mental disorder.

I have my "individual identity" and live good with it, but I dont need a "liberal life concept" nor do I want to see such puppets around me - especially if its about individual which would have such a great potential but are finally just material for the profit of others and die without reason, without offspring, without use for the group and kill their line with themselves.

Or you can develope a proper identity and start feeling good about you as an individual, a self.

I'm sure those who live their "corporate identity" for a multinational company which will set them off soon and move to another, cheaper and more desperate place for decades are "more self", I'm sure those crying teenagers which want to marry an illusion of an individual which was produced by corrupted producers for the masses and consider this idiocy being idealism are "more self" - and yes, for sure those who think the meaning of life is to "have fun", but fun means for them to satisfy their most primitive instincts, using drugs and sexual excesses to forget their meaningless existence are "more themselves"...Yes, I'm absolutely sure.

Now somebody might say I argue with extremes, but that three things - shown with examples - is what the "small mass human's" life without identity and dignity is finally about. Think about it twice and I repeat: You cant be under the bottom line of this.
And those which constructed this "human zoo" even speak of "humaneness", as if they would know anything about what is really human or if they would care at all.

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

Whether you say this or that over the 6 months or over eternity, the fact is you talk a lot of bullshyt that isn't even true. That's sad. You're in your own lil' world.

Everybody is in his own little world including yourself, so whats the point in stating the obvious? Question is what is closer to reality and I'm at least theoretically closer to than most others.

Blah blah. Do you really know who you are? I ask you this because you are the most prolific poster. And the worst is when you add lil' bits n' pieces from German philosophers of yore without really understanding what they meant.

Sure, you are the great expert if its about German philosophy, I will ask you about Nietzsche, Hegel, Kant and Wittgenstein... ;D

There's a time when a man has to look into his own soul and accept the void that stares back, and bravely accepts the boon it provides.. of living life for no other reason than living, being kind because it seems, dealing justice because it seems just, loving life, seeing its beauty, cheerishing it because it is fleeting..

I even agree on that. Again look at the mass I described above and telling me that they know what you mean - if you really mean what you say at all.

Or he can keep on chasing after lil' gay idealogies to believe in, so he can have his make-believe immortality. One ideology/father figure is no better than another.

Well, if it makes the own life, those of the relatives, my potential children and the children of my relatives, my whole group and finally improves the potential of mankind - well, what could be higher than that?
So you dont care about whats coming after you? After your death - what happens with your relatives, your group, mankind, life on this planet - well its all shit and you dont care right?
Dont think so, but if, it would be really poor.

I have both my individual interests and my collective goals. I dont see the contradiction and finally whats wrong with ideals which would improve things in general and would help individuals as well? Thats at least better than an ideology in which everybody just cares for his own ass - speaking like you do - because thats what Liberalcapitalism is finally about and nothing else.
And when you are old and had the shitty life of your designed "Liberal life concept" you can die knowing that you did nothing of value. Its not just about reaching something, its about trying it at least - that shows that someone has a value at all. Those who dont even try are worse than lower animals, especially if they know what they are doing, what harm they do to the whole group and many other individuals for nothing but their egoistic interests.

Furthermore I even tried to ignore some things which happen in the Western world, to live my own life, but everytime I meet those puppets again and have to speak with them, watch TV or see what they are doing to our community I can't stand it.
Believe me, if I could, I would just ignore it because I think chances are low that I will succeed, but I can't watch that shit and nod, thats impossible.
The worst about this system is they dont just expect that you tolerate what they are doing, you even have to actively embrace it and work for it, especially if you are in a higher position and in a certain social environment.
But thats something which goes 100 percent against my person and I won't and can't abandon myself in face of this lies and destruction which will fall back on me, my environment and potential children anyway, because this system will expand, will expand until it reaches every level of life and you can't escape that madness, you can just fight it.

[oubit]

Power to the Brachys!!!

[Liquid Len]

agrippa said:

Your "self" is an illusion of your brain in the first place

What do you mean by "self"?
Do you believe that it was you who has experienced the things that you remember having experienced at say age 22? Or would this just be wild speculation to you?
I personally believe that I have really experienced (at least most of) what I remember having experienced. Therefore I think there must be a self that is persisting through time. The Buddhist concept of non-self (anatta) seems nonsensical to me. This persisting self is something that has to be explained, instead of being negated. Unfortunately, western philosophy hasn't dedicated itself much to this issue, since it cannot strictly be proven that our memories of our past life are really memories of our past life - and thus they didn't see it as the problem it is. And neuroscientists of course can't be expected to step any further into philosophical problems than philosophers do.

[Agrippa]

First of all, our brain gives us the constant illusion of a unity, an always present selve, though various parts of the brain can work together and against each other, its about regulating factors which bring it together and if those regulating factors dont work properly, the illusion of the ego is broken. Thats the case in severe schizophrenic cases f.e.

But another question, do you really think you were the same person at the age of 8 as you are now? Obviously you changed a lot and can't be compared.

Its funny about all that religious stuff, people speak about souls, but whats the soul? If your brain gets damaged or you have traumatic experiences and completely change your character what are you then and what were you before? If you would have died one year before that incidence you would have been a totally different person than afterwards, so the idea of a self surviving the body is an obvious human construct out of desperation.
Thats obviously very strong in all mosaic religions, whereas Buddhism is at the same time more realistic, and with his avoidance to face the real existence in this world in a proper way even as or more unrealistic - at least speaking about certain concepts and the avoidance from life and desires.

[One Humanity]

Conscious thought in itself is an epiphenomenon of verbalisation/imagination behind our decision-making that results from the subconsciousness. Before we become aware of it, an action that is going to be performed was cerebrally already initiated. This has been found out with experiments. It does not make our will a simple mask but there's a period of time left in which our consciousness can veto, change or redirect the subconsciously made decisions. The overall result of the procedure leads to what we naively feel as free will.

Read about Benjamin Libet:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet

In German as well if you want:
www-x.nzz.ch/folio/archiv/2002/04/articles/experiment.html

"In a similar manner, a footballer, skier, tennis player, etc. preconditions the brain/body to perform certain skills - and in doing so uses language/conscious thought as an enabling tool - but when actually performing the brain/body acts directly and does so 'unconsciously' as prime mover, and in a manner that conscious 'thinking' would only obstruct."

Already great apes (except for gorillas) and bottlenose dolphins can recognize their self-image in the mirror and thus approach the human state.

[Liquid Len]

Agrippa, I have to go back a bit to answer your objections.

Imagine for once a crowded room - you could say it would be a room full of conscious experiences. Now, if you were - for a moment - being part of this crowd, you would fully experience some of these experiences at a given time, and some not at all. How is that possible? There are only two possibilities: Either you are these experiences, or you are a subject (whatever that is) who has them. The first possibility leads to weird conclusions, because the stream of consciousness is constantly changing: If you're conscious content A at a time t you would cease to exist as soon as it is replaced by content B at t+1. The function of the memory can't solve this problem, because all the memory can do is giving content B the feeling that it had been existing for a longer time. But for yourself it's already too late then; why should you bother about what B will believe when you're identical to A? Just imagine: Right now you are being a certain conscious content. And at another moment you're a completely different content? This would mean that yourself =/ yourself, which would mean nothing else than: You're not existing at all. But despite all of this, "your" consciousness seems to go on and on, without disappearing all of a sudden. Although you're something different than before, although you're not existing anymore, your consciousness is still existing. Would be too weird, wouldn't it? Therefore I'm decidedly advocating the other of the mentioned two possibilities: Namely, that you are a subject, a self (a brain, a soul or whatever) who has experiences.

If the self is (as I'm thinking now) a piece of matter, a brain for example, then cutting this self into two pieces won't produce two different selves, because if you 're really identical to that particular matter, then it's logical that you'll be identical to both pieces after they had been cut apart.
Furthermore I explained in the thread about soul merging and -splitting why I don't think that selves can split up into several selves or merge again.

dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=1136902207

So how do we have to interprete cases where someone's unified consciousness falls apart and disintegrates into pieces? IMO the self should remain the same, i.e. the various disjointed experiences that the brain makes are all experiences of the same person, but he or she can't make a connection between the pieces. Or alternatively some contents ("some voices") are just produced unconsciously.
Correct me if you think these explanations don't suffice.

agrippa said:

But another question, do you really think you were the same person at the age of 8 as you are now? Obviously you changed a lot and can't be compared.

Well, it might be true that it isn't the characteristics that make up an identity, but the substance. Some think that a piece of plasticine that is subsequently moulded into different shapes remains the very same object although its form changes - because they assume the substance remains the same, and that it is the substance onto which identity is based.

Anyway, there are only two sharply distinct possibilities: Either I was the same person (i.e. that person was me), or I'm not the same person (i.e. I wasn't existing back then, because that was someone else). There is no inbetween. The latter version would mean that I have just "inherited" the memories, which would wrongly make me believe that this person was me.

There is no point in the memories of what appears to be my previous life where I could say "here it's getting dubious, and from here on that was clearly experienced by me". So you might have been existing for nothing more than the last couple of hours and you might get "replaced" in some minutes. It's only clear that you're existing right now in this very moment, i.e. for the few seconds that comprise our subjective "present". So every day you wake up in the morning, you could be amazed that you're still existing and you could wonder how it is possible. And then it could come to your mind that this might be the first day of your life (reminds me of a song btw), i.e. that you were not existing the day before. Or you could even be amazed every hour... Or you could believe that your consciousness exists at least as long as you're living. Personally, I do the latter, but such a mere belief cannot justify a philosophical investigation, can it?

However, every assumption of a personal continuity that extends further than the few seconds that comprise our present, has to be explained, otherwise it would have to be accepted that there is no such continuity, and this would mean that we're only existing for this very moment - the past we wouldn't have experienced and in the future we'd be no longer. Needless to say that this latter assumption seems utterly counter-intuitive and weird, since our experience is that the future is constantly becoming present, and whatever we've just experienced as present slides into the past. Whether we're assuming a continuity of a whole life or just one of some hours - in every case we'd have to assume a persisting self that would have to be explained.

agrippa said:

Its funny about all that religious stuff, people speak about souls, but whats the soul?

To me it's basically a very vague concept that can be defined in varying ways.
Sometimes I use it, but only after having given it a more precise meaning.

agrippa said:

If your brain gets damaged or you have traumatic experiences and completely change your character what are you then and what were you before? If you would have died one year before that incidence you would have been a totally different person than afterwards, so the idea of a self surviving the body is an obvious human construct out of desperation.

I can't quite follow you. Are you're still presupposing that personal continuity depends on the identity of characteristics? If so, see above.

[Liquid Len]

german1984 said:

Conscious thought in itself is an epiphenomenon of verbalisation/imagination behind our decision-making that results from the subconsciousness. Before we become aware of it, an action that is going to be performed was cerebrally already initiated. This has been found out with experiments. It does not make our will a simple mask but there's a period of time left in which our consciousness can veto, change or redirect the subconsciously made decisions. The overall result of the procedure leads to what we naively feel as free will.

Read about Benjamin Libet:

I think Libet's studies are overinterpreted because they have some shortcomings, the most important of which is that the task those test persons had to accomplish was simply to move their hand or finger "whenever they felt like it", i.e. when they had an inner drive to do so. It's clear that such an utterly spontaneous decision can't be compared to the planning and decision making in a difficult task or project in the real life.

[Liquid Len]

Also very relevant to the question if there is a self is the thread I made about Zen-Buddhism:

dodona.proboards35.com/index.cgi?board=philosophy&action=display&thread=1132328894

It's exactly about the idea that there are no persons/selves, but only experiences.
Note: "Only experiences" here doesn't mean at all that the existence of the physical world is denied. It means that there are no persons, and that at least from the subjective point of view, only experiences exist - but these experiences can of course correspond to physical events. That's no problem, and this isn't what the argmuent is about. (just to prevent misunderstandings)

[Agrippa]

Although you're something different than before, although you're not existing anymore, your consciousness is still existing. Would be too weird, wouldn't it? Therefore I'm decidedly advocating the other of the mentioned two possibilities: Namely, that you are a subject, a self (a brain, a soul or whatever) who has experiences.

We have to distinguish between the physical existence, the human body and the personality. Usually there is a certain continuity, so basically one stage is based on the stage before etc.
This continuity could be described as self, but simple put, if you would reproduce an exact clone with all your experiences, he would be the same and might be just becoming afterwards (different influences) different.
On the other hand, reproducing yourself at a stage of different consciousness (f.e. as a child) would mean that the difference to your current state might be as big or even bigger than to any other person you could chose.

If the self is (as I'm thinking now) a piece of matter, a brain for example, then cutting this self into two pieces won't produce two different selves, because if you 're really identical to that particular matter, then it's logical that you'll be identical to both pieces after they had been cut apart.
Furthermore I explained in the thread about soul merging and -splitting why I don't think that selves can split up into several selves or merge again.

Welll, I spoke about the subjective self, feeling as something "whole" and counscious.

F.e. if I would have an accident tomorrow and my personality would be destroyed, but my body would live on, I would consider myself being dead if everything what I was is dead.

You could compare the self with a computer, the personality is what is on the harddrive, thats basically you at the moment. To erase it or change it without having the basic continuity I spoke about above, would be practically very similar to kill you physically.

So to me the human is his personality, lost or drastically changed would mean to cease to exist as what you was.

A schizophrenic individual lost what is necessary for his personality to fit the various parts of his feelings, thinking and unconscious processes together. So because his brain doesnt work as it should and split up into various parts subjectively, he is indeed split.
Still one person and organism, but what makes him an ego was split and is out of control.

IMO the self should remain the same, i.e. the various disjointed experiences that the brain makes are all experiences of the same person, but he or she can't make a connection between the pieces. Or alternatively some contents ("some voices") are just produced unconsciously.
Correct me if you think these explanations don't suffice.

Well, obviously he would be physically the same person, but then again, the basic continuity which constructs a self on the long run was destroyed or at least interrupted. At the times of the interruptions he is not what he was, he is broken.

Obviously thats a philosophical question too, because what is a human? There are two parts, the sheer physical one, and the mental. The mental part needs a body, thats for sure, but the physical presence doesnt need the mental characteristics of a human. F.e. would be a human which functions are lower than that of a Gorilla a mental human? In my opinion only if that would be temporary phases like in childhood or during diseases, but if there would NEVER be a human with the typical mental characteristics, this individual wouldnt really exist as human, it would be just a body without human content.

Either I was the same person (i.e. that person was me), or I'm not the same person (i.e. I wasn't existing back then, because that was someone else). There is no inbetween. The latter version would mean that I have just "inherited" the memories, which would wrongly make me believe that this person was me.

Thats not wrongly, because that is the necessary trick to construct a conscious self. The experiments which prove that we select images, memories and recombinate them quite losely, goes in that direction too. Which just build up a picture of ourselves as a child for our own self-image, but in fact we can't really think back. So whats the self through time? Its again the continuity I spoke about. F.e. if all the memories and experiences would be lost (hardly possible especially if speaking about connections in the brain) the continuity would be again broken.

It's only clear that you're existing right now in this very moment, i.e. for the few seconds that comprise our subjective "present".

Exactly. The rest are just memories which we re-arrange - partly against the real experiences we had.

So every day you wake up in the morning, you could be amazed that you're still existing and you could wonder how it is possible.

Again we have examples for that, people which have no memory on the last days, their short time memory is broken. They can write something on a paper and would be surprised about it next day.
Horrible.
But its a reality for some traumatised or injured people. Again those cases prove that only the functions of our brain bring ourselves everyday "up to date", only this updates allow us to think of us as an entity and continuity. If just one part of that system doesnt work properly anymore, the self can break up even before our death.

However, every assumption of a personal continuity that extends further than the few seconds that comprise our present, has to be explained, otherwise it would have to be accepted that there is no such continuity, and this would mean that we're only existing for this very moment - the past we wouldn't have experienced and in the future we'd be no longer.

Lets put it that way. Our brain is a machine which has certain "duties" if it functions properly, one is the constant illusion of a self. So our brain had the experiences, but we only get small pieces of that in our long term consciousness, but thats what forms our self-image. Some brain structures even trick the conscious self to keep up a self image, because without that we would break up, get insane, couldnt function any more. For animals of a higher order thats a necessity, especially for humans obviously.
Evolution is not chance in such cases, it was necessary for our functionality to produce a self image, what our brain does, every day.

Needless to say that this latter assumption seems utterly counter-intuitive and weird, since our experience is that the future is constantly becoming present, and whatever we've just experienced as present slides into the past. Whether we're assuming a continuity of a whole life or just one of some hours - in every case we'd have to assume a persisting self that would have to be explained.

Point is our brain experiences the moment and will be changed by the environment and inner processes all the time. So its state changes, and it is different from what it was lets say 1 year ago. But at the same time, with parts, small pieces of our memory, a self is constructed for the reason mentioned above as long as the continuity is present.

Its late now, my brain is tired

[Liquid Len]

agrippa said:

We have to distinguish between the physical existence, the human body and the personality.
Usually there is a certain continuity, so basically one stage is based on the stage before etc.
This continuity could be described as self,

I don't think that real persistence of identity can arise from continuous change. When there is e.g. an object that slowly and gradually changes its shape and at the same time changes its substance, so that after some time the substance is completely replaced and the shape is extremely different - how can we reasonably claim that it's still the same object?

I will explain further below why IMO there has to be real persistence.

agrippa said:

but simple put, if you would reproduce an exact clone with all your experiences, he would be the same and might be just becoming afterwards (different influences) different.

The interesting question here is what "would be the same" is supposed to mean. Of course, obviously they would have the same properties, and in this sense they would be "the same" ("sie wären gleich" in German). But would they be the same person? Only if you presuppose that identity depends on properties rather than substance. It's also noteworthy that it looks inconceivable to imagine what it would be like to be two human beings at once, i.e. having at once two completely seperated consciousnesses.

agrippa said:

On the other hand, reproducing yourself at a stage of different consciousness (f.e. as a child) would mean that the difference to your current state might be as big or even bigger than to any other person you could chose.

True; and that makes me skeptical about theories according to which real persistence of indentity depends on properties.

agrippa said:

Welll, I spoke about the subjective self, feeling as something "whole" and counscious.

F.e. if I would have an accident tomorrow and my personality would be destroyed, but my body would live on, I would consider myself being dead if everything what I was is dead.

You could compare the self with a computer, the personality is what is on the harddrive, thats basically you at the moment. To erase it or change it without having the basic continuity I spoke about above, would be practically very similar to kill you physically.

So to me the human is his personality, lost or drastically changed would mean to cease to exist as what you was.

A schizophrenic individual lost what is necessary for his personality to fit the various parts of his feelings, thinking and unconscious processes together. So because his brain doesnt work as it should and split up into various parts subjectively, he is indeed split.
Still one person and organism, but what makes him an ego was split and is out of control.

First of all, I think it's necessary to distinguish between consciousness and personality. To me consciousness is made up of certain ingredients, of mental contents, namely, very generally speaking, of thoughts, of feelings and perceptions.
A personality on the other hand is basically a collection of characteristics, of personality traits and habits, of certain patterns of action and reaction. So to me these are two very different things.

When you look around yourself you realize that there probably must be many conscious experiences besides the ones you are experiencing. So, of all conscious experiences at a given time, only a very small fraction is conscious "to you". What makes this difference?
The answer is: Either you simply are your specific experiences at this given time or you are a subject, a self who has these specific experiences. If you are your experiences, you must definitely completely vanish with them. That means: First you don't exist, then there is a couple of experiences at a given time which you are, and then you don't exist anymore. At the time you don't exist there are still many experiences, but "to you" they are exactly like your neighbour's experiences right now: You don't notice anything of them. "To you" there is simply nothing, because you're not existing then. So there is obviously a big difference between being and nonbeing: Being means that there is consciousness ("to you"), nonbeing means there is nothing (except for all those who are existing then).

To me this scenario looks entirely incredible, because it's so enormously contrary to my feeling of existence, of duration and of living a life. Therefore I’m very inclined to think that I’m a subject, a self that has experiences. What exactly this is and how long it continues to exist (maybe just some hours) is a completely different question.
Some might suggest that it's a certain personality structure, a certain character that makes up your self, and that you're existing as long as this pattern exists. I'm not convinced of this (in fact I even think it's wrong), but it's at least an idea.

Coming to the often cited computer analogies: If the self (how I use the word) is the hardware ( = the brain), then you're existing as long as the hardware does exist. If the self is the software ( = the personality) this holds true for the software instead. But as I said, we have to distinguish between personality and consciousness. What would consciousness be in a computer analogy? For sure not the software (like many people believe), which is merely a collection of instructions what the computer has to do and how it has to react; this would in fact correspond to the structure of the brain and probably also to some of the informations in the genes. Consciousness on the other hand would correspond to the working of the computer, to the running of the information processing. (Thus, your consciousness (your subjective "I") could be turned off and restarted again, as long as the self (whatever it is) is existing and able to work.)

Concerning the schizophrenics you seem to argue that it's the personality that defines a self and that since their personality is split and, in a sense, destroyed, they aren't the self they had been before. But after having made clear what I wrote above, I think you have to revise your idea.

agrippa said:

Well, obviously he would be physically the same person, but then again, the basic continuity which constructs a self on the long run was destroyed or at least interrupted. At the times of the interruptions he is not what he was, he is broken

OK, I know there is this common language usage to identify "a person" simply with the whole composite of the body and the psychical aspects. But this isn't what interests me. In this context here I use the expression "person" virtually synonymous to "self", and what I mean by self, and what I want to explain by assuming it should be clear now from what I wrote above. It's supposed to be what makes temporally different parts in a stream of consciousness to parts of one consciousness. Obviously we can't simply say that such different parts are just one consciousness, because the contents can be totally different. So what does it actually mean to say that it's the same consciousness? It can only mean that it's the consciousness of the same self or person.

And what constitutes the transtemporal persistence of a person, is, as I wrote, a different question. If we're supposing that someone's self is his brain for instance, then the self and hence the consciousness remains the same even if it's split up, as long as it's the same brain that is working.

As I wrote above: I don't think that real persistence of identity can arise from continuous change. The basic continuity you speak about can only produce the belief that one is the same person, but this would be an illusion.

agrippa said:

Thats not wrongly, because that is the necessary trick to construct a conscious self. The experiments which prove that we select images, memories and recombinate them quite losely, goes in that direction too. Which just build up a picture of ourselves as a child for our own self-image, but in fact we can't really think back. So whats the self through time? Its again the continuity I spoke about. F.e. if all the memories and experiences would be lost (hardly possible especially if speaking about connections in the brain) the continuity would be again broken.

As I said, there is a big contrast between being and nonbeing. It’s like the difference between what you are feeling and what your neighbour is feeling. If you're not really existing across time, then you are just a fleeting moment in the present, and what your brain is going to think in the future and what it has thought in the past is as alien to you as the thoughts all other people are thinking right now. Your consciousness won't exist anymore and it hasn't existed in the past, i.e. you're not really living a life; therefore any belief to the contrary must be an illusion, it must be wrong.

agrippa said:

Again we have examples for that, people which have no memory on the last days, their short time memory is broken. They can write something on a paper and would be surprised about it next day.
Horrible.
But its a reality for some traumatised or injured people. Again those cases prove that only the functions of our brain bring ourselves everyday "up to date", only this updates allow us to think of us as an entity and continuity. If just one part of that system doesnt work properly anymore, the self can break up even before our death.

Don't you care about what will happen to your body (or to “yourself”) tomorrow? After all, following your reasoning it won't be your body anymore, and it won't be your consciousness at all. Someone in your body will believe that he was you, but this won't be you. Do you think about your body's future just out of compassion for the one who will be having it then?

You see, we have to distinguish between the subjective feeling of continuity, of the belief that we have duration on the one hand - which depends heavily on the functioning of the memory (or of a fake construction looking like a memory). On the other hand there is the question if our consciousness really will be existing tomorrow, and this depends on the question if we as persons (i.e. our self) are really going to exist tomorrow. And this is completely independent of any memory. Because, your memory doesn't determine your present experience (at least not all of it): If you burn your finger, the unpleasant feeling is immediately there - you don't have to check your memory first to see if you should feel pain now. You don’t need the memory to feel the pain. So what determines your present experience then? It's the fact that you (the subject you are) are in a very specific context and doing something specific. We could also ask: Why are you experiencing anything at all right now? Because there is something that is you (and be it just a perception). In the future, you will only be able to experience something if there also will be something that is you, otherwise you’ll be “dead”, even if your body lived consciously on. (Note: The problem I am pointing to is that this presupposes a real identy between what I am now and what I will be then – not just a subjective impression). So IMO if I lost all my memory, but without dying and with my brain still working afterwards, then I (my consciousness) could still be existing (i.e. I could still think, perceive and feel - it wouldn't be the least bit the same as being dead, which means not thinking, not perceiving and not feeling anymore), although I would have the impression that there was nothing the days before and my feeling of identity would be heavily shaken, but that would be just a comparatively little spectacular side effect (although subjectively a personal drama).

agrippa said:

Lets put it that way. Our brain is a machine which has certain "duties" if it functions properly, one is the constant illusion of a self. So our brain had the experiences, but we only get small pieces of that in our long term consciousness, but thats what forms our self-image. Some brain structures even trick the conscious self to keep up a self image, because without that we would break up, get insane, couldnt function any more. For animals of a higher order thats a necessity, especially for humans obviously.
Evolution is not chance in such cases, it was necessary for our functionality to produce a self image, what our brain does, every day.

Without self image "we" would break up? Are you supposing now that we'de be nevertheless exisiting without self image? Or shouldn't you rather say that the functioning of the body would brake up? And that your body is in your opinion in no way something special compared to any other body in the world, except perhaps of the fact that you're right now a couple of conscious impressions inhabiting this body?

[Agrippa]

I think that such discussions are more interesting face to face, its somewhat tiresome on the internet

I don't think that real persistence of identity can arise from continuous change. When there is e.g. an object that slowly and gradually changes its shape and at the same time changes its substance, so that after some time the substance is completely replaced and the shape is extremely different - how can we reasonably claim that it's still the same object?

Its the same organism at least which changes from one state to the other.

The interesting question here is what "would be the same" is supposed to mean. Of course, obviously they would have the same properties, and in this sense they would be "the same" ("sie wären gleich" in German). But would they be the same person? Only if you presuppose that identity depends on properties rather than substance. It's also noteworthy that it looks inconceivable to imagine what it would be like to be two human beings at once, i.e. having at once two completely seperated consciousnesses.

Well, obviously the original would be one individual and the copy another, but at least for a short moment they would be the same, after that, because of different perceptions and experiences they would change - most likely becoming, even on a very, very, very low level different.

But would they be the same person? Only if you presuppose that identity depends on properties rather than substance.

Ok, simple put: Whats comes closer, your brain dead body or a living copy which is what you were shortly before the accident? In my opinion the copy would be more you than the brain dead body which is nothing any more.

True; and that makes me skeptical about theories according to which real persistence of indentity depends on properties.

Thats true, for us humans, subjectively. But thats the result of our consciousness constructed by the evolution.

To me this scenario looks entirely incredible, because it's so enormously contrary to my feeling of existence, of duration and of living a life. Therefore I’m very inclined to think that I’m a subject, a self that has experiences.

Sure, didnt wanted to tell you otherwise
What I wanted to show is how this subjectivity comes into existence and what it means. As long as we are healthy we feel this duration and that we exist...but those people which have defects show us how vulnerable this illusion of our brain is.

Some might suggest that it's a certain personality structure, a certain character that makes up your self, and that you're existing as long as this pattern exists. I'm not convinced of this (in fact I even think it's wrong), but it's at least an idea.

Thats what I would say. F.e. a human which didnt developed a personality (not so far or never will) can't be considered being a real individual but is just a hull, a potential individual or something less.
Thats an interesting question if thinking about abortion and the practice of infanticid in some cultures. In older times people knew when it was real murder and when just a potential human being was killed which didnt developed a soul yet. Even in Christianity we had this stories about "souls too young to get baptised or buried in a Christian way".

(Thus, your consciousness (your subjective "I") could be turned off and restarted again, as long as the self (whatever it is) is existing and able to work.)

Exactly. Thats what I meant with interruptions - f.e. coma, schizophrenic phases etc.
As long "as the Computer runs" and the data which makes up the personality ("the software part" is to a large degree present and functions, the self exists. Obviously without the hardware: no software. But the software could be lost, the hardware would be still there, though probably not working properly: empty hull.

Concerning the schizophrenics you seem to argue that it's the personality that defines a self and that since their personality is split and, in a sense, destroyed, they aren't the self they had been before. But after having made clear what I wrote above, I think you have to revise your idea.

Dont think so. The big difference in schizophrenics is whether they have "clear phases" in which they have at least limited access to "their software" are present, than we could speak about interruptions, thrusts of the pathological process. But thinking about an individual which would be caught in neverending halucinations without proper access to its data and without the correct function of its hardware, this could hardly be considered being the same personality - in extreme cases thats even close to braindeath, though that seldomly the case nowadays with modern medical treatment.

F.e. I might want to die in a situation in which my personality was destroyed physically as well, but after the accident, it might be the case that my limited mental abilities might form an infantile version of my personality which wouldnt be able to still comprehend its own situation nor to remember the past decisions. From my perspective I would be dead then and even if this infantile self would want to exist my current will would want to die and that should be done.
In such an extreme case there would be no real continuity and therefore we could speak of the same person as I was before the assumed accident.

As I wrote above: I don't think that real persistence of identity can arise from continuous change. The basic continuity you speak about can only produce the belief that one is the same person, but this would be an illusion.

Objectively yes, subjectively thats another matter.

Don't you care about what will happen to your body (or to “yourself”) tomorrow? After all, following your reasoning it won't be your body anymore, and it won't be your consciousness at all. Someone in your body will believe that he was you, but this won't be you. Do you think about your body's future just out of compassion for the one who will be having it then?

Explained above. My personality and its graduell development is myself, ones the continuity is lost my body might be there, even some sort of feeling and thinking, but that wouldnt be me as I was or am since what constructed my personality which I would equate with self would be lost.

You see, we have to distinguish between the subjective feeling of continuity, of the belief that we have duration on the one hand - which depends heavily on the functioning of the memory (or of a fake construction looking like a memory). On the other hand there is the question if our consciousness really will be existing tomorrow, and this depends on the question if we as persons (i.e. our self) are really going to exist tomorrow. And this is completely independent of any memory.

It doesnt depend on single memories, but without your memories you wouldnt be the same person obviously and it would depend on the functioning "of the hardware" if at least rests of your would exist.

If you burn your finger, the unpleasant feeling is immediately there - you don't have to check your memory first to see if you should feel pain now.

Thats true, but thats true even for the lowest human being with the lowest possible consciousness. Its animal like, its not typical human. For that experience you dont need any higher evolved brain structure - but the desperation, the conscious pain, knowing that this is you who was hurt and what might follow, that you know why and that you can bring this experience in an order, what you make out of that experience, that is you. Otherwise thats just like a fire alarm, every worm has it.

Because there is something that is you (and be it just a perception). In the future, you will only be able to experience something if there also will be something that is you, otherwise you’ll be “dead”, even if your body lived consciously on.

Exactly.

So IMO if I lost all my memory, but without dying and with my brain still working afterwards, then I (my consciousness) could still be existing (i.e. I could still think, perceive and feel - it wouldn't be the least bit the same as being dead, which means not thinking, not perceiving and not feeling anymore), although I would have the impression that there was nothing the days before and my feeling of identity would be heavily shaken, but that would be just a comparatively little spectacular side effect (although subjectively a personal drama).

Agreed. Though without the ability to fully recover and remember, I personally would equate it with being dead to a large degree.

Without self image "we" would break up? Are you supposing now that we'de be nevertheless exisiting without self image? Or shouldn't you rather say that the functioning of the body would brake up? And that your body is in your opinion in no way something special compared to any other body in the world, except perhaps of the fact that you're right now a couple of conscious impressions inhabiting this body?

The self is the brain. Best example, someone who lost his arm lost his tool, but he is still himself. The body is just our instrument for the brain as the whole physical existence of ourself is probably, at least going after Dawkins, the instrument for our genes.
As I said, its the developed personality which is what we are. F.e. if I would erase all your memories and experiences and would fill your body with something totally different, it would be the same crime as if I would have killed you physical from my point of view.
So f.e. its absurd to me that someone who damaged someones brain until he is practically mentally dead should be treated better than someone who physically killed someone - its the same. The crime is not to kill the body, but another person, whats not the same. A body without a functioning person and developed personality is a piece of meat, even less a human or as much human as an animal in the same stage.

An Alzheimer-patient f.e. is dying, from a certain stage on he is practically dead even if he can still run around or has a very low perception.

I rarely argue with movies, but this movie explains it quite good:
www.imdb.com/title/tt0099077/

The individual existed before the diseases and for a short time of successful treatment, in the meantime it was "standby" and without the ability to recover (hard to determine in some cases) it would be dead.

[Agrippa]

Altruistic acts are selfish..

Thats nonsense, altruistic acts are altruistic - point is that the personal perspective, obviously there is no other way of altruism, so you are not really wrong. From this perspective its understandable that there people able to feel and act after higher idealism, because it fits their personality structure, and people which can just act egoistic, destructive and greedy, though it might be possible to bring them to act for a group by showing them very personal advantages.

Thats indeed something I can totally agree with, we do all for ourselves finally, but point is some personalities work and function better for the whole group, finally for both the group and themselves and others dont, its in their basic structure, thats why some defective people can't understand higher idealism or at least dont really feel it.
Congratulations, now you know why different personality structures, as we can see in twin studies as well, show that some people can be more group oriented, working both for themselves and the group and feeling better than and others are sociopaths or controlled by low emotions, unable to feel higher idealism or acting heroic, which would lose in the group selection and are for sure not the better future of mankind.

[Agrippa]

human2 said:

You work for a larger group because it makes you feel good in some way, or else why would you do it? It's a selfish act.

You believe in the race. Someone else believes in the art they produce. Another believes in the religion/rituals/beliefs/spiritual community they cherish.

No difference.

Big difference, question is what is closer to reality and will finally work better for all mankind. You are wrong, I'm probably obsessed with the "race stuff", but so are you, but you dont grasp that it is not the only, probably not even main basic of my beliefs.
Finally what I want would be good for all of mankind and what we see now is bad not just for my ethnoracial unity but for all of mankind.

How do you define yourself in your "nihilistic world view"? Though you seem to be concerned about very small and unnecessary details, still have rather low emotions to which hamper your rationality.

I'm more open minded and tolerant than you might think and race is just one piece of a bigger picture, it shows what real development could mean and on what a group should be based on primarily. But the final goal goes much beyond that and its for sure not about hate.