I think that we have no reason to think they're reliable under a deterministic framework and we have reason to think they're unreliable under that same framework. Namely: Every other physical process is not rational, how come our brains just happen to be?

What reason do we have to think they are unreliable under a deterministic framework? There is nothing irrational about any physical processes e.g. clouds forming shapes. What shapes a cloud forms is entirely deterministic. It occurs due to the laws of physics acting on matter and energy. So, your claim “Every other physical process is not rational” is false.

Perception requires some sort of energy. Sight, hearing, etc, all require different organs which consume energy. Which means evolution has to find what are the most beneficial things to perceive in compairson with how much they take to perceive. It's not like creating an omniscient being is just as "cheap" materially and in terms of food intake as creating something that sees much less. Spiders are almost blind and they survive just fine.

Evolution is not sentient. It doesn’t plan and it doesn’t calculate the best option in terms of costs and benefits. It works through mutation – which occurs due to mistakes. We are all mistakes of nature. Nature doesn’t care if we live or die. This is why 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct and the remaining 0.1% are also at risk of going extinct.

Sight is not the only way to create a model of one’s environment. Spiders have eight eyes which can detect light and darkness. Spiders are highly sensitive to motion. Which helps them survive and reproduce. Have you ever seen a human without any capacity to see, hear, touch, taste, and smell? Would such a human be able to survive without help from other humans? I have seen people in a coma. They were kept alive by machines and doctors and nurses. Without their help, the patients would die.

It is well known our brain doesn't perceive everything. We don't perceive UV, we don't perceive microwaves, we don't have that ability that birds have to detect the magnetic field produced by earth's core to know which direction is north (despite it being a very useful ability, considering how impactful compasses are).

Since we cannot perceive what our brain doesn't perceive (by definition), we cannot know how much we do perceive or how much it is altered by our brains (we know our brain alters perceptions, or else how would optical illusions arise?) So I don't believe the argument from evolution works when you take into account that there is a cost for exact perception which might not be worth the payment. What do you think?

I agree that our brain doesn’t perceive everything. It doesn’t have to perceive everything for humans to survive and reproduce. It has to perceive just enough about hazards such as falling off cliffs or getting eaten by lions to ensure our survival and reproduction.

See, what's what I think, but you tell me there is no "choosing" at all.

That’s not what I said. I said that our choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

To prove me wrong, you would have to do only the following:

1. Live forever without consuming any oxygen, fluids, or food.
2. Do things other organisms e.g. tardigrades, dolphins, chameleons, etc. can do.
3. Teleport everywhere and everywhen.
4. Prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths.
5. Make all living things (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) forever happy.
6. Be all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful and make all the other beings also all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.
7. Own an infinite number of universes and give all beings an infinite number of universes each for free.

Once you have done the above tasks, I will be convinced that your choices have no constraints but even then, your choices will still be determined by the variables (e.g. your experience of reading these words) that produced the choices.

If you contend that we can control what we think about, then we can't be running deterministically right? How can we be in control if everything we think is predetermined?

It is because we are running deterministically that we make the choices we make. I didn't say that our choices are predetermined. They are determined in the present by the interactions of four types of variables which are genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences.

Our choices are both determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present. This is why banana trees don’t post on this forum and humans don’t do photosynthesis.

We don’t have complete control over everything we do. The amount of control we have is determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

I do some things even though I don't want to do them. Here are some things I have done, currently do or will do even though I don't want to do them:

1. Breathe
2. Eat
3. Drink
4. Sleep
5. Dream
7. Pee
8. Poo
9. Fart
10. Burp
11. Sneeze
12. Cough
13. Age
14. Get ill
15. Get injured
16. Sweat
17. Cry
18. Suffer
19. Snore
20. Think
21. Feel
22. Choose
23. Be conceived
24. Be born
25. Remember some events that I don't want to remember
26. Forget information that I want to remember
27. Die

If I had as much control as I would like, I would never do the 27 things I listed.

I understand that there are compatibalist views which support both free will and determinism, but you stated multiple times that you don't believe in those, and that we'd need freedom to have any choice, and so any responsibility. For the last couple of paragraphs though you suddenly mentioned "choice" a dozen times. I'm confused...

We would need to be all-knowing and all-powerful to be able to do everything we want to do and to refrain from doing everything we don’t want to do and to have complete control over everything that exists. I am sorry that you are confused. Has reading everything I have said above helped you to understand what I am talking about? I have never said that we don’t make choices. I have said many times that we make choices and these choices are not free from determinants and constraints. These choices are determined and constrained by our genes, environments from conception to the present, nutrients from conception to the present, and experiences from the womb to the present.

Yes, your thought experiment about connecting the trigger of a gun to the spin of subatomic particles is interesting. However, that is not how the macroscopic world works. Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world does not exhibit the superposition, indeterminacy, and entanglement that exist in the quantum world. Quantum decoherence is the reason the macroscopic world is deterministic despite quantum indeterminacy.

I hope that I have explained everything clearly. If you have any questions, please ask. If you can prove me wrong, please do. Thank you.

I understand how you feel. Like you, I used to be religious. Like you, I found leaving religion very difficult. If you want to talk more about it, you can send me a private message.

I agree.

I appreciate lots of things but what is ultimately the point of existence? If I could have prevented my existence, I would have done so a long time ago. I am upset about all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death. I want to make all living things forever happy, but I can't.

The workings of the brain create perceptions, thoughts, emotions, actions. None of these things are dumb physical processes.

We have no way of knowing the degree of correlation between accurate representations of the world, and evolutionary success, so we cannot assume from evolutionary success that our brains are accurate.

That's not true. If an organism's brain can't produce an accurate enough model of its environment it dies from environmental hazards or predation. The fact that I avoid environmental hazards and predators successfully shows that my brain produces a sufficiently accurate model of the reality I live in.

We can choose to think about a specific topic but the thoughts arise unconsciously. For example, the contents of this post are thoughts that occurred to me as a result of me reading your post. It is not dumb, it is responsive to stimuli.

We subject our thoughts to analysis to work out if the thoughts are rational or irrational. A cloud is not sentient. A cloud has no control over the wind. We are sentient and we can control which topic we choose to think about. A cloud can't analyse the shapes it forms to see if it has formed something irrational or rational.

Quantum decoherence stops quantum indeterminacy from creating macroscopic indeterminacy. At macroscopic levels, events are still deterministic. If you toss a coin, whether it lands on its head or tail depends on the forces acting on it.

I am quoting ChatGPT 4:

Quantum decoherence is a fundamental phenomenon in quantum mechanics where a quantum system loses its quantum properties, like superposition and entanglement, due to interaction with its environment. This process effectively makes the quantum behavior of the system unobservable, making it appear more classical. Here are some key factors that cause quantum decoherence:

Interaction with the Environment: Quantum systems are incredibly sensitive to their surroundings. Even minimal interactions with external particles or fields can cause a quantum system to decohere. This includes interactions with photons, air molecules, or even stray electromagnetic fields.
Loss of Isolation: Quantum coherence, which is the maintenance of quantum states like superposition, requires that the system be isolated from external influences. In practical terms, complete isolation is nearly impossible to achieve, and any exposure to the external environment can lead to decoherence.
Entanglement with the Environment: When a quantum system interacts with the environment, its quantum states can become entangled with those of the environmental particles. This entanglement leads to a redistribution of the quantum information into the environment in a way that can no longer be controlled or observed by examining the system alone.
Thermal Interactions: Temperature and heat are forms of kinetic energy associated with the motion of particles. At higher temperatures, the likelihood and intensity of interactions between the quantum system and its environment increase, leading to faster decoherence.
Measurement and Observation: The act of measurement can lead to decoherence. Measuring a quantum system often involves some form of interaction with it (like photons impacting electrons), which can cause the wave function to collapse to a particular state, effectively causing decoherence.
Decoherence is one of the major challenges in developing quantum technologies, such as quantum computing and quantum cryptography, as it limits the ability to maintain and manipulate quantum states over time.

Thank you for answering my question.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs.

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

Like you, I too do not have a religion.

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.

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 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.

That's interesting.

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?

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.

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?

I didn't say that you will agree with me if you read the book. I expect people to make up their own minds about everything. I have never asked anyone to agree with me about anything.

If anyone wants to discuss the book with me, chapter by chapter, I am happy to do so.

In an earlier post, I quoted ChatGPT 4 - if you want to discuss that I am happy to do that, too.

I can't really summarise the book in a few words. I read the book almost five years ago. I still have the book and would be happy to go through it again if anyone wants to discuss it with me.

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

I said "It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing." The key words here are "It's possible." I didn't say that it actually was the case.

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

Do you have a religion?

This is what I originally said:

It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing.

I didn't say it was actually the case. How could I possibly know what the actual case is? There is no way for me to test the idea that what appears to be real is part of a simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion.

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

It is impossible to test the simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypothesis. Just as it is impossible to test the solipsism hypothesis.

According to Hinduism, we are all souls plugged into an illusion called Maya. All we see, hear, smell, taste and touch are part of this illusion called Maya. Allegedly, we reincarnate in Maya according to our karma. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the illusion called Maya.

You don't have to read the book if you don't want to. My recommendation to read it is just that - a recommendation.

I am convinced by the contents of the book that the self is an illusion. If you want to assess the contents of the book you will have to read it. I am not going to copy and paste an entire book into my posts - that would breach copyright laws.

I disagree. I could be a disembodied soul experiencing the simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion that I am in a human body, in a universe where there are other humans and other species.

Welcome to the forum.

I am quoting ChatGPT 4:

The concepts of the minimal self and the diachronic self represent different aspects of personal identity and consciousness in the field of philosophy, particularly in the study of the self and identity. Here’s a breakdown of these concepts and how they compare:

Minimal Self
Definition: The minimal self is a concept referring to a person's immediate, present-tense sense of self. It is the basic, core self-awareness that is present in the moment, without any extended reference to one’s past or future.

Characteristics:

Immediate: It is concerned with the "here and now," focusing on present experiences and sensations.
Pre-reflective: It operates without the need for introspective thought or reflection on one's existence or identity over time.
Fundamental Awareness: It involves an awareness that one is the subject experiencing or undergoing an experience, often described as the sense of "I" or "me" in the immediate sense.
Philosophical Context: The minimal self is often discussed in contexts such as phenomenology, where philosophers like Edmund Husserl and later Zahavi delve into the structures of experience and immediate self-awareness.

Diachronic Self
Definition: The diachronic self refers to the aspect of self that extends across time. It includes a continuity of identity that spans past, present, and future experiences, forming a coherent narrative or story of oneself.

Characteristics:

Extended: It is concerned with the self across time, integrating memories of the past and anticipations of the future into a coherent identity.
Reflective: It often involves reflective self-awareness, where one thinks about one’s life as a continuous story or narrative.
Personal Identity: It addresses how a person remains the same individual despite various changes over time, considering aspects like memories, personality traits, and life experiences.
Philosophical Context: Philosophers such as John Locke and Derek Parfit have discussed the diachronic self, focusing on issues like personal identity, memory, and moral responsibility over time.

Comparison
Temporal Scope: The minimal self is about the immediate moment, lacking any temporal depth, whereas the diachronic self encompasses an extended timeline, integrating the past, present, and future.
Conscious Awareness: The minimal self involves a basic, possibly non-reflective awareness of selfhood in the present moment. In contrast, the diachronic self requires a higher level of self-reflection and narrative construction.
Function and Focus: The minimal self is more about experiencing and reacting in the present, which can be crucial for immediate survival and basic interactions. The diachronic self, however, is key to one’s overall life narrative, responsible for actions and decisions informed by a sense of personal history and future goals.
These two concepts of self highlight different aspects of what it means to be a person, one focusing on the immediate and fundamental aspect of experiencing consciousness, and the other on the continuity and narrative of one's identity over time. Both are essential for understanding the complex nature of human self-awareness and identity.

The question of whether the self is an illusion is a profound and contentious issue that spans philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and even areas of spirituality. Different disciplines and perspectives provide various answers:

1. Buddhist Philosophy
In many schools of Buddhist thought, the self is considered an illusion. This perspective holds that the notion of a permanent, unchanging self is a misconception. Instead, what we consider the "self" is merely a collection of changing phenomena, including physical sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The concept of "anatta" or "non-self" is central here, suggesting that realizing the illusory nature of the self is key to achieving enlightenment.

2. Western Philosophy
Western philosophical views on the self vary widely:

Humean Perspective: David Hume famously argued that upon introspection, one does not encounter any fixed self but only a bundle of sensations and experiences. According to Hume, the self is more a product of our imagination, as we tend to think of our identity as some kind of underlying essence when it's actually just a collection of changing perceptions.
Kantian View: Immanuel Kant posited that while our empirical self (the self as we experience it) is knowable, there is also a transcendental self (the self that experiences) which we cannot directly know but must assume to exist as the condition for the possibility of experience.
3. Neuroscience and Psychology
From a scientific standpoint, some neuroscientists and psychologists suggest that the self is a construct created by the brain to organize and integrate information. This construct:

Functional Purpose: Serves to create a coherent narrative from the myriad of sensory inputs and internal dialogues.
Illusion of Continuity: Offers an illusion of continuity in an individual's life. This is seen in the way memories, personality traits, and personal narratives are woven together into what feels like a continuous identity.
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.

Conclusion
The question of whether the self is an illusion depends significantly on what we define as the "self" and the theoretical or practical lens through which we view it. From a strictly empirical and materialistic viewpoint, the self could be seen as an illusion—there is no singular, unchanging essence that is the self. From a functional and phenomenological standpoint, the self, though perhaps a construct, serves essential roles in human cognition and social interaction.

This ongoing debate is central to many disciplines and continues to challenge our understanding of human consciousness and identity. Each perspective brings valuable insights into what constitutes the self and how it influences human experience.

The word "illusion" means "not what it seems". That's all there is to it.

Did you read the book or not? You need to read the book to understand why there is no "You" inside your head.

It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing.

We are not our body, but we appear to be embodied. I agree about the mind dying when the body dies.

It feels like my locus of consciousness is behind my eyes and between my ears. I imagine it feels that way for you also.

Our words reflect our experiences. That's why we have words such as "I" and "me". I feel like a conscious individual being.

Have you read the book I mentioned in my first post in this thread?

I agree that we are all unique. The reason we are unique is because we are products of the interactions between unique genes, unique environments from conception to the present, unique nutrients from conception to the present and unique experiences from the womb to the present. If these groups of variables were identical for everyone we would be identical in our thoughts, emotions, words, and actions.

So, how would you explain consciousness?

That's interesting. Thank you.

Some have called Hume a Bundle Theorist when it comes to the question of the self.

Being me feels like being a self. According to the book I recommended in the first post in this thread, this is an illusion because the self is a process not an entity.

If you have any evidence for the existence of souls, gods, resurrection or reincarnation please show us and we can examine the evidence together. Thank you.

The self feels like an entity even though it is not an entity but a process. This is what I mean by the self being an illusion. If solipsism is accurate, the self is all there is and everything else is generated by the self. I don't think solipsism is accurate even though we can't actually test the idea.

The self feels like an entity even though it is not an entity but a process. This is what I mean by the self being an illusion. I like your idea of proto-consciousness. How would we test this idea?

Thank you for your interesting reply. I have spoken with people who meditate regularly who said that they experienced the silent self which is beyond the chatter of thoughts. I have never experienced the silent self. Have you?

Thank you very much for your detailed post. I didn't really understand the quoted text because my brain is depressed which diminishes comprehension. If I ever get well, I will re-read it.

By sentient I mean conscious. Philosophical zombies behave as if they are conscious but are not actually.

What's the difference between self and consciousness?