4. Cognitive Science
Cognitive scientists might argue that the self, while being a constructed narrative, is not necessarily an illusion but a functional entity. The "self-model" used by our brains helps in predicting actions and planning future activities, which is crucial for survival and social interaction.

This of course requires the epiphenomenalism is not true, and in turn that reductionism and causal closure are not true, in essence ruling out most popular formulations of physicalism. The self, being something that exists within phenomenal awareness can have absolutely no effect on behavior under causal closure. Likewise, we cannot eat sweets or have sex because these are pleasurable. Our actions must be wholly explained in terms of our physical constituents, whose actions are in turn wholly determined by physics. If things that are useful for survival and reproduction "feel good," this is merely accidental, having nothing to do with behavior or function.

And, as Jaegwon Kim seems to be able to demonstrate, if substance metaphysics accurately reflects reality, i.e., if thing's properties of things inhere in their material constitution, reductionism pretty much has to be true.

It seems that either way, at least one of our fundamental intuitions/assumptions is wrong. Either consciousness has absolutely nothing to do with function and behavior (which brings up a host of epistemic issues since natural selection will not ever directly interact how consciousness seems) or "what things are and what they do," is not wholly determined by "what they are made of." You'd need something new: information theoretic contextuality, process metaphysics, Deacon's metaphysics of absence and constraint, pancomputationalism (also process) - something that radically departs from the dominant view of what physicalism is re supervenaiance and causal closure.

That, or explaining how elimnitivism and epiphenomenalism make sense and how they don't result in intractable epistemic issues that make them self-refuting. If I knew a good answer, I'd write a book, but I assume the former is a more likely solution than the latter, that the science of consciousness is in a position similar to physics before Einstein, in need of a paradigm shifting rethink of its most basic assumptions.

So, is the self an entity the way a soul is an entity that can be resurrected or reincarnated?

I don't know what the whole truth about reality is. That is why I am the Truth Seeker, not the Truth Knower.

So, is the self an entity the way a soul is an entity that can be resurrected or reincarnated? — Truth Seeker

I don't know. It's uploadable in a lot of science fiction, and those writers weren't thinking of anything mystical. I've always assumed it was some sort of pattern they were supposed to be uploading. Don't know.

Uploading is an interesting idea. That would require our consciousness, personality and memories to be substrate independent. As far as I know, our consciousness, personality and memories are substrate dependent i.e. they need the living brain.

As far as I know, our consciousness, personality and memories are substrate dependent i.e. they need the living brain. — Truth Seeker

I think the previously mentioned science fiction writers would say that nobody thought tuberculosis was curable, until it was. There were those who claimed it was impossible to go to the moon. I say put your biases aside and let yourself know the truth: we don't know. :blush:

I am open to new knowledge. I have studied neuroscience so I am basing my view on what we currently know. Would you choose to be uploaded if it became available tomorrow?

Would you choose to be uploaded if it became available tomorrow? — Truth Seeker

I don't think so. When I'm done I want to sink down into the warm ooze of a worm's belly and come back out as something else. Fertilizer for an oak tree maybe.

That's interesting.

If you want to assess the contents of the book — Truth Seeker

I was hoping to asses the content of your thoughts on the book, or really your thoughts on the subject of the true nature of the self.

I am convinced by the contents of the book — Truth Seeker

Don’t you mean you are not convinced? I mean how can something convince “you” an illusion? What is there to convince?

You said “I am convinced”. And you are convinced the “self” referred to as “I” is an illusion. So no you are not. “You” can’t be.

Right? No book needed. Totally get it now. There is no conversation here. (And despite the question “right?” notice no use of the illusory “I” - trying to be consistent with what remains once the illusions are stripped away.)

Cognitive scientists might argue that the self, while being a constructed narrative, is not necessarily an illusion but a functional entity.

I have not read every response here, so perhaps someone else has highlighted the following distinction:
Regarding the self, and, for that matter, Mind, being an "illusion." I do not think the point being made is that the self does not exist, as in, it is like a mirage. Rather, that, as to its nature being real, it is not. It is therefore, an entity, and a functional one at that, but it is not the being of this body; not its essence; not who or what we are. All of these, and many other "conclusions" we make both within and outside of philosophies, are illusions.

I have not worded this with enough diligence paid to precision, etc. However, should I be required to clarify further, I think I might.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. But I think a problem is thinking the self is not real, or is an illusion, if it is not a physical object. If I was frozen in time, or carbonite, or moments after I die, the physical object is there, but there is no consciousness. No self. I'm not that body, or the brain. I'm the activity of the brain. At least certain activities of certain parts of the brain.

I read The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head. Have you read it? If so, would you like to discuss it with me? If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it. — Truth Seeker

Interesting and I added it to my next up set of books.

Most of us believe that we possess a self - an internal individual who resides inside our bodies, making decisions, authoring actions and possessing free will. — Truth Seeker

I do not believe that.

Instead, to me, the self simply is. That is to say there is no 'possession' and writing of it that way seems wrong to me in the gut. The individual is certainly not 'external' either so all the wording is wrong.

The feeling that a single, unified, enduring self inhabits the body - the 'me' inside me - is compelling and inescapable. — Truth Seeker

It is neither compelling nor inescapable. That is a new fallacy you are applying to many of us that do not feel that way. So, back off, just in general. Your experience is not mine.

The assumption that others feel the same way we do is compelling, but we are supposed to get past that light compulsion around age 2 or so. You know it's about the time you realize peek-a-boo doesn't make the person disappear, really.

This is how we interact as a social animal and judge each other's actions and deeds. — Truth Seeker

Also not true for me. Very early on I had a sense of right and wrong. The indoctrination for the Christian church only put into words what I already felt. Of course, it went to far and then my indoctrination failed because I could not follow the rank silliness of religious dogma. Still, the sense of right and wrong was at least compelling, if not resonant. I prefer the latter word in every way. I did when I was a child even though at that time the word was not a word but a feeling.

But that sovereignty of the self is increasingly under threat from science as our understanding of the brain advances. Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you. — Truth Seeker

There is no difference between a unity of things and the thing as singular. That is the delusion. So this assault is just the giving way of one delusion towards another. And yes, I am claiming that this new revelation is only JUST another delusion. It is uninspired, unremarkable, and in fact dangerous as a belief.

We only emerge as a product of those around us as part of the different storylines we inhabit from the cot to the grave. It is an ever changing character, created by the brain to provide a coherent interface between the multitude of internal processes and the external world demands that require different selves.
— Quoting the description of the book — Truth Seeker

This is chaos-apologist nonsense. The patterns that define the body and give rise in an emergent sense to the mind are linked and not easily changed at all, if ever. The persistence of personality as tendency is profound. Nature is much more determinant than nurture. Still, choice is superior to all of that as choice was what defined the prison of the body up until now. That is state and state changes. Truth does not.

Although choice is infinite in power finally, it is harder to choose well from certain states. Almost nothing is created by the brain. Integration is not finally creation. It is discovery and management, more properly stated.

I do like the idea of multiple mechanisms working together as that matches my feelings regarding the scope of moral agency. But such scopes are all delusional, finally. That is to say, there is only ALL, and delusional sub scopes within all. Identity of any kind is then just delusional. Inasmuch as we are made of cells and then down to atoms and perhaps sub-atomic quanta, and they are doing their thing, which to me is STILL .. JUST ... free will, we then are 'cells' or 'units' of ALL. There is no real difference excepting only the moral agency sum at that level of scope.

I am sentient but I can't prove to you or anyone else that I am sentient. You could call me a Philosophical Zombie and I won't be able to prove that I am not a Philosophical Zombie. — Truth Seeker

Indeed, proof and certainty are delusional and not relevant. Pursuit of greater awareness is not the same thing as certainty. Casting off the foolish need, the timid need, for comfort and certainty is wise. Awareness is ... good enough. Self aware is a vastly debatable topic. The critical issue is already well in place, that is free will, the only truth in the universe. It exists at all levels, even in sub-atomic quanta. It is no surprise at all that this same phenomenon is then emergent to the greatest moral agents of which we are aware, us, human beings.

Many people believe that humans have immortal souls which leave when the body dies and is either resurrected by God or reincarnated according to karma. I am not convinced that souls exist but I am open to examining any new evidence for the existence of souls. — Truth Seeker

There is no purpose to the God delusion or the soul delusion.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

What is the true nature of the self? — Truth Seeker

The nature of the self is truth, is ALL, is belonging. All separation is delusional.

Yes, and it would be obtuse to disagree with you. However, what you expressed may not be the only, or full, representation of the so called self.

But what I was getting at: (I don't know whose post that quote came from, I must’ve erred). To simplify, it was alluding to cognitivescience "defining" the self functionally, and, thereby "resolving" the illusion problem.

I was saying that the self can be functional and still an illusion. The "illusion" is not intending that the self isn't actually existent, serving a function.

The illusion is rather as to its nature and our identification with its fleeting and empty construction, as if it were not just real, but the most privileged among the real, maybe even immortal.

I appreciate that.

Let me know if, though I’m using my own words, if it sounds like someone who follows what are saying.

I see a mirage of a tree.
The mirage exists,
but the “tree” is not real (because it’s a mirage).

That tracks how I’m using “exists” and “not real” the way I saw you use them here:

the self does not exist, as in, it is like a mirage. Rather, that, as to its nature being real, it is not. — ENOAH

You don’t really talk about what DOES exist, but it clarifies what does NOT exist, and they may be enough here.

Just to be careful, to restate what you quoted above with a “tree” thrown in for a “self,” I said roughly:

“You see a mirage of a tree.
The mirage exists because you are seeing it,
but the “tree” is not real because it’s a mirage of a tree, not a real tree.”

There’s a nuanced distinction between “exists” and “real” we’re both employing to make either quoted statement. We could pause on that distinction and it would probably even help clarify this, but I’ll keep going instead, and see if I can apply all this more directly to a “self.”

But one more second before we get to “self” as illusion, a mirage is like a projection, where what exists only behind your eyes in your head, is projected out into the world in front of your eyes as if it was a real tree and some water, but is not. That’s a mirage, like an illusion. I haven’t really defined anything yet, but shown enough likenesses between “projection” and “mirage” and “illusion” to keep going.

So the “self” is like the tree when seeing a mirage of a “tree”.

The self is like the tree when seeing a mirage of a tree.

As in: when you experience your “self” you really are experiencing a kind of “self” creation, where the creating is more an activity, and the “self” thereby created as an object, is not real, not the same way the creating, the act, in this this case simply experiencing, is real..

How far did I get here? Does this track with the “self” being an illusion, a constellation of functions, producing it”self” in the producing act?

(I don't know whose post that quote came from, I must’ve erred) — ENOAH

You had not quoted me. I just jumped on. :grin:

I was saying that the self can be functional and still an illusion. The "illusion" is not intending that the self isn't actually existent, serving a function. — ENOAH

It exists, and serves a function, but is an illusion? What is the definition of "illusion" that it allows for that sentence?

The illusion is rather as to its nature and our identification with its fleeting and empty construction, as if it were not just real, but the most privileged among the real, maybe even immortal. — ENOAH

I couldn't say, not believing in what I assume you are referring to - an immortal soul that survives the body.

It exists, and serves a function, but is an illusion? What is the definition of "illusion" that it allows for that sentence? — Patterner

If "illusion" is even the best word*, the illusion isn't as to its existence nor its function. It is this intuition we all undeniably have about it, such as 1. That it is the essence/substance of our bodies, 2. That it is "real" as nature is Real, or worse, more real than nature, 3. That it is a thing worthy of deeper analysis than psychology** (not exhaustive list)

*I prefer "Fiction," but that raises similar problems.

**It is worthy of deeper analysis than psychology, but that is because we have not "awakened" to its "fact" that it is an illusion

1. That it is the essence/substance of our bodies, — ENOAH

I do not agree.

2. That it is "real" as nature is Real, or worse, more real than nature — ENOAH

It came about naturally, through nature, through natural processes. It couldn't be otherwise.

3. That it is a thing worthy of deeper analysis than psychology — ENOAH

My opinion is that human consciousness is the most extraordinary thing known to us, and is worthy of any amount of analysis.

to restate what you quoted above with a “tree” thrown in for a “self,” I said roughly:

“You see a mirage of a tree.
The mirage exists because you are seeing it,
but the “tree” is not real because it’s a mirage of a tree, not a real tree.” — Fire Ologist

That might well be exactly what I'm saying, adding, the mirage yet serves a function. E.g., it drives me onward with the hope of its shade/it torments me with its seemingly unreachable distance...it's appearance and effect are there; i.e. they exist, but they are not Real. They are all the workings of ignorance.

There’s a nuanced distinction between “exists” and “real” — Fire Ologist

when you experience your “self” you really are experiencing a kind of “self” creation, where the creating is more an activity, and the “self” thereby created as an object, is not real, not the same way the creating, the act, in this this case simply experiencing, is real.. — Fire Ologist

Exactly what I think. Add, the "self" is not even the creator of the created Mind. The self too is a mechanism, the necessary Subject I/me, required to move a Narrative in linear progress as time. Also, and simultaneously, it stands in for the Body, for reference in the self created narrative, which necessarily triggers the body to feel, perceive, act. The illusion is that this mechanism within a constructed Narrative is the Body, and more! Is the Spirit or Soul that the body serves. When factually it is a convenient fiction

That it is the essence/substance of our bodies,
— ENOAH
I do not agree. — Patterner

You realize I too disagree, right? I'm not attacking. Just clarifying.

That it is "real" as nature is Real, or worse, more real than nature
— ENOAH
It came about naturally, through nature, through natural processes. It couldn't be otherwise. — Patterner

So did a beavers dam, but the beaver doesn't falsely identify it as a real extension of its body; but better, so did Mickey Mouse and Oliver Twist but we recognize they are Fictions.

That it is a thing worthy of deeper analysis than psychology
— ENOAH
My opinion is that human consciousness is the most extraordinary thing known to us, and is worthy of any amount of analysis.
4mReplyOptions — Patterner

Ok. I respect that. Simultaneously I admit how my communication is confusing. Of course it is the most extraordinary thing known to us, because we are in love with the illusion.

Note: I do not judge it as evil, wicked, immoral, a thing to be avoided, annihilated or abandoned. It is very functional. I just think it is also functional to be aware of its nature.

Would you choose to be uploaded if it became available tomorrow? — Truth Seeker

There is no "you" being uploaded. that's the point of the OP. Without the Body to sense, feel and act, it would be empty code uploaded into an even more Fictional machine; Fiction uploaded to fiction.

In fact, this is almost a thought experiment illustrating that the self is an illusion. What is it without the organism but empty code?

And the thing is, upload it into a fresh body, and its not you! You know this intuitively.

Take a scenario where a gunman threatens to shoot you. But he's compassionate and talented enough to say, I'll upload your self to this brain dead body. No thanks! You'd rush to say. There is no self to upload. I, grasping your chest, am me.

Read this from above:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/897122

Do I sound like I see what you mean by “self is an illusion”?

I suppose, theoretically, I could have my brain removed and put in a jar that keeps it alive, and is wired to sensory apparatus so I could still perceive what's near me. My guess is I would still be conscious, and still myself. My brain is where my consciousness lies. I can lose any number of body parts, and still be my self. — Patterner

Removing the brain from the body would make them both die immediately. Medically, scientifically and realistically it is unimaginable. Brain can only function properly in the body intact from the birth of the agent, and then naturally having been nurtured by the parents, growing experiencing and interacting with the real world and other members in the society.

The body without a brain is a corpse, a brain without the body is just a biological organ. There have been no cases of brain transplanting in human history, and it is doubtful if it would ever be possible.

What do you mean by "So the OP is not the actual case."? — Truth Seeker

It means the OP is under some sort of suppositional or imaginary scenario rather than based on the fact. When you say "It is possible that", it must have some degree of plausibility with the factual evidence for being real life cases. Without it, "It is impossible that" has the same plausibility too.

I did answer the second question by editing my initial answer as I had initially forgotten to answer the second question. — Truth Seeker

Not too worry.

Do you have a religion? — Truth Seeker

If religion is a belief system, then no. No religion is my religion.

No, I am not a Hindu. I am an agnostic atheist materialist monist. — Truth Seeker

For an agnostic atheist materialist monist, having all the

simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion — Truth Seeker

sounds like one's claim that she is a vegetarian, but loves eating beef, pork, chicken, lamb, and enjoys BBQ. :grin:

I am just aware of the possibility that my perceived reality could be a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. It does not mean that I am convinced this is the case. If I were convinced, I would have said that I am convinced.

You are misattributing the words to me. I said "Quoting the description of the book". I don't know who wrote the description - maybe it was the author of the book or maybe it was someone else. The description was quoted from the Amazon website.

If all particles in the universe are possessed of free will (and they are) then there is nothing else that need be explained or extrapolated. It is simple and persistent, like all truth. Matter, energy, and emotion; all three are never created nor destroyed. State changes like death are NOT RELEVANT. To believe that they are is the height of conceit and delusion.

How do you know that your claims are true?

I read the book almost five years ago. Before reading the book, I used to think of the self as a fixed entity rather like souls which are fixed entities that allegedly exist and are allegedly resurrected or reincarnated. After reading the book, I was convinced that the self is an impermanent process, not a fixed entity.

Like you, I too do not have a religion.

I agree with you. I was merely talking about a hypothetical scenario - not an actual scenario. That is why I used the word "If".