What the Buddhists will say is that we become "attached" to the "I," the "self," and that this is a cause of suffering. — Xtrix
I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self." — Xtrix
in the sense of recognizing a concept that isn't what we normally think it is — Xtrix
Its very difficult to explain to someone whose never experienced it. — DingoJones
So now imagine when youre in the room you are the one working the machines, and when you return after leaving, you are surprised to find on the security cams that the machines work fine without you and the machines being worked/controlled by you was an illusion.
Its like that, if any of that makes sense. — DingoJones
It maybe true that an external reality exists but how can we describe it? Once we start to describe it we rely on individual perceivers. — Andrew4Handel
Well I have experienced psychedelics. But no matter how far down the rabbit hole I go, there is always a nagging little "I' that never leaves. What the "I" is saying is "you are on drugs, don't get carried away here." I would think drugs would make it easier to identify a partial loss of self...the first step in losing the self would be forgetting you are on drugs. If I know I am on drugs, then "I' has not gone anywhere. If "I" am not on drugs, who or what is?
To be fair, I have never done...is it called DMT? I think that is the one that is supposed to be directly tied to the loss of self...maybe? — ZhouBoTong
Can't you have this experience just by drinking too much? You wake up the next day to find video of yourself dancing on a table that you don't remember? How were the machines operating if you don't remember operating them? Heck, even entirely sober, have you ever got in your car and backed out of your driveway, then paused and thought, how did I get here? Or any other thing that just happens on auto pilot while we are thinking about something else? Our brain can do a lot with minimal to no intention. — ZhouBoTong
I can't say you are wrong. But a loss of self seems to fail as the simplest explanation. It feels like claiming there is a god. A HUGE claim, with very limited evidence. — ZhouBoTong
I'm not inclined to say the self is an illusion. But the notion of a self as an "entity" somehow distinct or distinguishable from an "entity" like a sentient animal does tend to strike me as something like a fiction or conceptual confusion.I think the idea that the self is an illusion does not make sense. The obvious first complaint is who is having this illusion? — Andrew4Handel
This makes good sense.It is obvious to me that perception requires a perceiver likewise experience needs an experiencer and I think these things are indispensable. — Andrew4Handel
I'm inclined to agree that it's only genuine sentient things that have genuine knowledge.I agree with Thomas Nagel that Objectivity is a view from nowhere. I do not see how it is possible to have knowledge without a self or language and other mental representations, concepts and symbols or pain — Andrew4Handel
Have you tried any psychedelics or achieved a deep meditative state? In other words, have you actually done anything that would result in the loss of your sense of self? — DingoJones
It’s important to distinguish between the self as some separate ontological thing that endures despite changes, the self as a first-person perspective or general awareness, and the self as reflexive awareness (self-awareness). If you distinguish between these things all the problems go away. — Pfhorrest
I don't think someone could be very functional having their self identity undermined as we see in cases of amnesia and dementia. It is useful to keep track of who you are and exhibit a consistent personality. — Andrew4Handel
In other words, the "self" is a useful idea with practical utility. But does that warrant the promotion of the "self" to the status of ontological primacy? — sime
Meditation may help someone deal with pain (likewise hypnosis) but it is not a permanent state to function in. — Andrew4Handel
I agree, I do not see much point in living in that state all the time, or much time at all. That doesn't mean it isn't useful at all though. — DingoJones
I think that's a possibility. One watches a Buddhist monk burn himself alive and not move, and one has to wonder if there's something to this practice of "non-self."
— Xtrix
I am less convinced. Soldiers and athletes block out pain regularly. Many women cry like babies when they bump their leg on a table and yet somehow give birth without going into shock. Mental strength? No question. Some sort of "loss of self"? Possibly, I just have no reason to believe it. — ZhouBoTong
I can see some value here, but more along the lines of remaining agnostic to the possibilities, vs actually making a claim (there is no self) that would require evidence. — ZhouBoTong
I think that there is a fundamental problem in claiming something doesn't exist that people have direct access to.
For example pain. If you are in pain you know you are and no theorizing is going stop you being in pain. — Andrew4Handel
It maybe true that an external reality exists but how can we describe it? Once we start to describe it we rely on individual perceivers. — Andrew4Handel
There is pain, yes. There are sensations. There are thoughts. There are sights and sounds. There are all kinds of phenomena in the world. To attach a "I," "me," mine," "you," etc., to it is tricky. — Xtrix
whereas in the East it's much easier -- due to their very different traditional ontologies. — Xtrix
I can't say you are wrong. But a loss of self seems to fail as the simplest explanation. It feels like claiming there is a god. A HUGE claim, with very limited evidence. — ZhouBoTong
There is pain, yes. There are sensations. There are thoughts. There are sights and sounds. There are all kinds of phenomena in the world. To attach a "I," "me," mine," "you," etc., to it is tricky.
— Xtrix
I am not attaching anything to these things I am saying they don't make sense without an experiencer to be subject to them. — Andrew4Handel
whereas in the East it's much easier -- due to their very different traditional ontologies.
— Xtrix
Apparently Hindus believe in the soul/self but Buddhists don't but the issue is constantly debated in their histories. I don't see it as a resolved issue in those cultures. — Andrew4Handel
Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa... didn't they all have selves? — Shawn
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.