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

[Liquid Len]

agrippa said:

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

Yeah, that's true. I've had endless threads on such topics where we were constantly talking at cross-purposes; the risk for doing so is very high. But it has its advantages too - you can think enough about what you want to say and choose the best way to express it, and you don't forget things like you would in the heat of debate.

agrippa said:

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

True, but it's because of our language that an "organism" is something that can change substance and form and still we can call it the same organism. So in fact - as the facts are - there is something that changes substance and form until nothing is the same as before, while we - what are we doing? We walk up to it and stick the label organism on it, which is meant to encompass all stages of its development. It's we, not nature who are saying that it's an organism and thusly remaining the same as long as it's living.

agrippa said:

Well, obviously the original would be one individual and the copy another,

Do you mean individual in the sense of "self" /"person" (both how I use them)? If so: I think it's not obvious at all from the outside if they would be the same person or not. But it's clear that their consciousnesses would be completely seperated, because there would be no connection between their brains. And as I wrote, the idea that someone (one person/self) has at once two completely seperated consciousnesses looks awfully weird. I'm inclined to think it's impossible. Two consciousnesses in the same subject are automatically united to one just by being had by the same subject.

agrippa said:

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.

But the copy wouldn't be me, so I couldn't regain my consciousness through the copy (not even a little bit), no matter how similar it may be. My mind would remain as dead as without copy.

(However, there are people who believe that it's our pattern of characteristics that is our self and that only this pattern has to be recreated in order to be revived to new life... They think that the substance of our body has nothing to do with our self. It's a crazy idea, but e.g. the renowned mathematical physicist Frank Tipler has written a bestseller on precisely such a theory ("The Physics of Immortality").)

agrippa said:

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.

But why do you call it an illusion then? If the duration is an illusion, it means to you that it doesn't exist.

waldm said:

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.

agrippa said:

Thats what I would say.

Well, I strongly doubt that you would really believe what I was thinking of - namely of theories à la Tipler... On the other hand - perhaps you've just not thought enough about your view and it's possible consequences.

agrippa said:

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.

If the self is the brain, as you concede below, then the self exists even when the computer is turned off - as long as it (the computer) remains intact.

agrippa said:

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.

Going after the analogy I'm proposing, yes.
(However, for real computers it holds true that the software can be saved on other data carriers and used on other PCs. That's probably why many people believe that the software in a computer analogy corresponds to the mind - because the mind could then survive bodily death...)

agrippa said:

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

I suppose you don't mean "person" in the sense I used it. As explained, I used it virtually synonymous with "self" - and since you concede below that the self I'm talking of, to you is the brain - then all these cases you mention remain the same persons (in the sense I used it). And because I think that it's the person that makes temporally distinct phases of a stream of consciousness to phases of the same consciousness - then it would follow that your mind (consciousenss) would be still alive ( = not dead) in the pathologically infantile version of yourself - albeit very, very handicapped of course.
You use "person" in a close semantic proximity to "personality". So you're right insofar as if the personality changes or is destroyed, then the person (in the sense you use it) is destroyed (or "dead" if you like) too.

agrippa said:

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.

The big, striking, important, even tragic difference between being alive and being dead is IMO the presence or absence of consciousness. If I had to choose between losing my consciousness forever on the one hand and my personality being replaced by a completely different one on the other hand, then I would choose the latter. My mind could at least exist on, that's better than complete extinction. (How much better would of course depend on what exactly the other personality would be like - an infantile state really wouldn't be a tempting prospect... but other, much better ones are - at least in theory! - conceivable.)
So therefore I'm not really sure if I fully understand what you mean. Do you somehow link your consciousness to the presence of your personality? And do you think that your still conscious body without your present personality wouldn't harbour your consciousness?

agrippa said:

my personality which I would equate with self would be lost

Obviously a contradiction to what you write further below, where you're equating it with the brain.
Probably you're not always using "self" with the same meaning.

[Liquid Len]

human2 said:

All this talk of the self just misses the point..

I know, it missed the point of your thread, but I wanted to say it anyway.

PS: Fine you've changed the title.

[Agrippa]

1. It's very unlikely that an artist or some Christian volunteer will contribute less to mankind than you.

Depends, won't generalise things at the moment. But one thing is for sure, more people thinking like me would be much better than "(Neo-) Christian activists" which avoid reality.

2. Do you realize that this "mankind progressive cause" of yours is just another cause. It's value is completely subjective to your personal tastes. That has been part of point all along but you don't seem to grasp the concept.

I saw what you mean and agree in so far, as there are no fix rules at all, especially if arguing with constructivist theories, which would imply almost no higher moral or truth.

However, the concept of a developing mankind is more useful both for my group, the whole species, the ecosystem and finally the majority of the individuals which would live in a better organised, higher evolved environment and would have higher potential as well.

To ignore the deficits of the current system and developments means to deteriorate things until its unbearable and in every case more suffering and degradation would be the coercive result.

2. I'm not obsessed by race but I am very bothered by hypocrisy. It started with politics but now boils down to the most basic of hypocrisies that's on a societal level, race and ethnicity. I've been equally critical of Chinese nationalists, which led to banning.

I dont wonder, I have less problems with Chinese nationalists. You largely lack a sense for group spirit and higher idealism and seem to be obsessed with Liberal-Individualistic ideological concepts. which negate collective structures and goals.

I've read some of your basic beliefs and they are all excessively flawed and often self-contradictory and not even logical.

Details? Examples...

[Liquid Len]

First of all another explanation of the function that a self has, in my opinion:

Thoughts, feelings and perceptions that I experience subjectively all belong to my self.
I cannot subjectively experience thoughts, feelings and perceptions that belong to other selves. I can only hear or read signs for thoughts someone else has said or written, and I can see signs of feelings and perceptions in their faces and behaviour.

Now, I've come to think that the self (how I define it!) cannot be a physical object, such as the brain for example.

My argument runs like this:

A physical object can be split in two, so if my self was a physical object, it could be split in two independent parts, both of which would remain my self. For instance, I then would be two brains at once. (I know it's impossible, but it's only the principle that matters and at least in a far future it could even be technically possible, perhaps with future beings.)

Because of the above mentioned observations I think that my self is limited to one body, to mine. If my self comprised another body too, my experience would be strikingly different - I would definitely notice a difference, because I would see, hear and feel with another body too; I would then think that my self is limited to two bodies; and it seems logical that I could write that down and tell it to others, with any of the two bodies.

But if the self was two independent physical objects, there would be no way how one of them could gain informations of the other one. There would be no special, secrect connection between them just because they were both part of the same self. Therefore it would be impossible that anyone of them could write down or tell that he felt to be the same self as the other one.

And therefore it's impossible that the self (how I define it) is a physical object.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But what else could take over the funcion of what I'm calling "self"?

I've had an idea:

All the serious problems of the no-self view - which I already mentioned several times now - somehow all seem to be connected with the flow of time, and with the separation of time into a future that doesn't exist yet, a present that makes up all that is real, and a past that is no more. If we instead regarded time as a whole, big, fix block with all times being real (exactly as in the theory of relativity), then I could equate the self with someone's whole subjective flow of consciousness (thoughts, feelings, perceptions) - and nothing besides that (especially no substantial self) would be needed! I could compare this flow with a movie on a DVD - the whole thing makes up one self; all of it is existing, whereas our subjective present, this floating short moment of time, would be just a small part of it. "The present" (a point of time) could be regarded as an artificial abstraction, like if we press the pause button on the remote control: Then the film is halted - something that never happens in reality.

I think there's hardly a better explanation of the self possible. Another option would be to equate it with a nonphysical soul that is interacting with the body and influencing it... but this view has several problems.

[Agrippa]

"The present" (a point of time) could be regarded as an artificial abstraction, like if we press the pause button on the remote control: Then the film is halted - something that never happens in reality.

Indeed. Self-reflexive thoughts are foreign to many people, at least those which reach a higher level, so we can see that self-reflexive analysis would be no pause but a slow motion of our existence in which we can at least foreshadow our artificial self - since schizothymes tend more to do that, they are those which usually evolve higher Idealism or Religion as a mean to stand this awful truth - which in turn is the reason for their often higher effectiveness, they see how inane the self can be and project it to something higher, goals or plans of higher order.

For the rest, well, the self is the functioning brain, you could change the body, you could exchange the body, your experiences would change, but just they, your basic self would be the same. Destroy or drastically change the brain or influences working on it (hormones f.e.!!!) and you change the character of the self - do it fast and extreme and you destroy the former self since you broke up the continuum.

[Liquid Len]

agrippa said:

Indeed. Self-reflexive thoughts are foreign to many people, at least those which reach a higher level, so we can see that self-reflexive analysis would be no pause but a slow motion of our existence in which we can at least foreshadow our artificial self

Two different remarks on your reply:

1. When I was talking about time, about the flow of time and the present, I wasn't thinking of psychological mechanisms and higher reflexions. And it should be possible to become clear to (almost) everyone, not just to the schizothymes.
To use a different analogy of my point: "The present" is about as a useful abstraction as the ascent of a curve in a certain point - far off reality, but the idea can have some function in our daily life.

2. I've explained several times what I mean by self, and why I don't think that it's an illusion. Now, by "artificial self" again you seem to imply that it's kind of unreal or a construct. To me it's obvious that we're not talking about the same thing. I don't know if you have grasped my point, nor do I care (I just want to make it clear that we are talking at cross purposes). On the other hand, I think I know pretty well what you mean by "self". The point is that the questions and problems arising in the context of what I mean by "self" are much more interesting, fascinating, challenging and important, IMO. But who cares...

agrippa said:

For the rest, well, the self is the functioning brain, you could change the body, you could exchange the body, your experiences would change, but just they, your basic self would be the same. Destroy or drastically change the brain or influences working on it (hormones f.e.!!!) and you change the character of the self - do it fast and extreme and you destroy the former self since you broke up the continuum.

That's contradictory.
First you say the self is the brain ("the functioning brain"), then, in the very next sentence you say that the self can be destroyed if just the personality changes too quickly, too extremely and without continuity. Can you make up your mind? It can't be both true.

[Agrippa]

Yes, what you meant is interesting too but too philosophical, something you can talk about with professors or friends personally, but I'm "not philosophical enough" to do it by typing in a forum

First you say the self is the brain ("the functioning brain"), then, in the very next sentence you say that the self can be destroyed if just the personality changes too quickly, too extremely and without continuity. Can you make up your mind? It can't be both true.

With the brain I referred to the filled brain - so if you would take out the brain of your body, but it would still function and no information would be lost, the self would still exist.
But vice versa is not true, to erase the information (software) or to harm the physical brain and destroy its structures (hardware) would have the same and even more permanent effect.

So if the software is seriously harmed, changed, rapidly, without continuity and by destroying much of the established structure (f.e. anoxia, trauma, heavy stroke etc.) means to harm if not destroying "the self".

In fact such a rapid change is not possible without a damage-change of the brain and its functions.