Does a seperate "self" exist independent of it's space & time?

[Agent327]

This question is a little abstract for my taste but nonetheless I thought of it the other day & thought it would make good thread material. I tend to think it does not (there is no "pure soul" that exists outside of circumstance), that any "self" requires context & some sort of relationship with externals or it cannot exist. It may please the human ego to think such a "self" exists but I don't see any evidence it does.

If it does we do not know it or: if it does we cannot know it. (= Short answer.)

 

[emzie]

Is consciousness something other than the end result of a biochemical reaction? No.

 

[Perfection]

Maybe! Mathematical are often considered to have an existence outside of the universe, and in addition to being physical beings, we might have a mathematical counterpart that exists independent of the universe.

 

[Narz]

Maybe! Mathematical are often considered to have an existence outside of the universe, and in addition to being physical beings, we might have a mathematical counterpart that exists independent of the universe.

Can you flesh this out a bit?

 

[CavLancer]

This thread just jumped off the page at me Narz. Its something I've been focusing on also, but I've become convinced that we are only partly in this existence and partly somewhere else. The question has become for me is whether this...all we see...is 'real'. So I've done some searching on youtube and came up with these...


Link to video.

part 2


Link to video.

This is a BBC 4 vid which is excellent.

I can't get it to play here but this is the link...its not so flako as the others.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1406370011028154810

<embed id="VideoPlayback" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-1406370011028154810&hl=en&fs=true" style="width:400px;height:326px" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"> </embed>

 

[Narz]

I read a book by that title "The Holographic Universe" back almost half a lifetime ago (at 16 I think, was a ray of sunshine at reform school). I'll check out your vids.

 

[Bast]

This question is a little abstract for my taste but nonetheless I thought of it the other day & thought it would make good thread material. I tend to think it does not (there is no "pure soul" that exists outside of circumstance), that any "self" requires context & some sort of relationship with externals or it cannot exist. It may please the human ego to think such a "self" exists but I don't see any evidence it does.

I thought of this thread a few days ago but A : been busy B : didn't think to start it until I saw the "how do you find yourself" thread.

Have fun.

No. There is no self. Here read about the concept of anatta in Buddhism.

The most relevant part:

Buddhism does not necessarily deny the existence of mental phenomena (such as feelings, thoughts, and sensations) that are distinct from material phenomena.[2] Thus, the conventional translation of anatta as "no-soul"[3] can be misleading. If the word "soul" refers to a non-bodily component in a person that can continue in some way after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of a soul.[4] Instead, Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought of consciousness as a permanent substance within a person.[5] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anatta doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[6]. When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[7] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.

I know it's wikipedia but it's good for a start and it's pretty accurate as far as I understand it also.

 

[RedRalph]

I lean towards no, but I cant honestly say for sure either way.

 

[Agent327]

Is consciousness something other than the end result of a biochemical reaction? No.

That's one view - albeit a simplistic one; at least it should be the result of multiple biochemical reactions over time.

 

[aelf]

I believe the problem is we can't know for sure whether we exist except in relation to the external world. I think we unavoidably exist within a material context as it is. But I don't think we are defined just by how we relate to the external world either.

I don't know if I'm a substance dualist or a monist, though.

 

[Agent327]

I think a distinction should be made between our self and the self in general; a separate self might exist - under the name of God (or another); following accepted doctrine God might very well exist outside "his" space and time.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think the 'self' is actually a gestalt of separate brain functions that integrate into a whole. This is why your awareness of different parts of your 'self' can change over time.

 

[Agent327]

That's also a possibility. In philosophy Self is broadly defined as the essential qualities that make a person distinct from all others. The task in philosophy is defining what these qualities are, and there have been a number of different approaches. The "self" is the idea of a unified being which is the source of an idiosyncratic consciousness. Moreover, this self is the agentresponsible for the thoughts and actions of an individual to which they are ascribed. It is a substance, which therefore endures through time; thus, the thoughts and actions at different moments of time may pertain to the same self. As the notion of subject, the "self" has been harshly criticized by Nietzsche at the end of the 19th century, on behalf of what Gilles Deleuze would call a "becoming-other".

Nietsche's Übermensch is a concept concerned with overcoming the present human self, in order to reach (or become) another over-self. (Not superhuman, which, like Untermensch - or subhuman - is a notion quite alien to Nietsche's thinking.)


In psychology, the self is thought to be an adaptable structure, with a static core, defined in early life.

 

[aelf]

Nietsche's Übermensch is a concept concerned with overcoming the present human self, in order to reach (or become) another over-self. (Not superhuman, which, like Untermensch - or subhuman - is a notion quite alien to Nietsche's thinking.)

Err, not really actually. I don't believe that it has anything to do with getting over the self in any meaningful way. If anything, it's a reaffirming of the self.

 

[Agent327]

Surpassing the present self might be viewed as overcoming the self, though. (Not "gettng over", as if it's a disease; that's precisely the view alien to Nietzsche, but taken by certain extreme nationalist "thinkers".)

 

[aelf]

Surpassing the present self might be viewed as overcoming the self, though. (Not "gettng over", as if it's a disease; that's precisely the view alien to Nietzsche, but taken by certain extreme nationalist "thinkers".)

In that case any form of significant self-improvement can be regarded as overcoming the self. Not a terribly useful description, I'm afraid.

IMO, something more like getting over the self is the Schopenhauerian transcendence of the world of will ("punching through the veil of Maya"), since you obliterate your own will, which has so far constituted the most part of your self. Nietzsche actually turned this around completely through his concept of the eternal recurrence.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Phineas Gage [...], when he got the rod thru his head the old Gage died & a new one was born but on a sublter level we all die & are reborn every moment.

Yeah, I think this is an important insight. Of course on a semantic level, "same person" tolerates a lot of change, even sudden change. Then there is a semantically indeterminate region (like maybe the Gage case - or, if we replace a large chunk of Narz's brain with a Borg brain - same person?). Then there are clear cases of "not the same person" (what if we replace all of Narz's brain with an utterly different brain, and successfully connect the nerves to the body).

Life experiences and activities don't come with Certificates Of Ownership. Our judgments of who's who are pragmatic, very workable in everyday life, but totally inadequate to deal with science fiction scenarios (or even a few real life issues).

 

[emzie]

That's one view - albeit a simplistic one; at least it should be the result of multiple biochemical reactions over time.

Well I wasn't trying to imply consciousness can be written down as a chemical equation.

 

[Agent327]

Good to hear.

In that case any form of significant self-improvement can be regarded as overcoming the self. Not a terribly useful description, I'm afraid.

No, Nietzsche was thinking more in terms of the human race, rather than the individual. (Again a concept misinterpreted by more extremist minds.) I doubt Nietzsche saw much room in terms of individual self-improvement, but rather was thinking in terms of general evolution of our species.

IMO, something more like getting over the self is the Schopenhauerian transcendence of the world of will ("punching through the veil of Maya"), since you obliterate your own will, which has so far constituted the most part of your self. Nietzsche actually turned this around completely through his concept of the eternal recurrence.

The ewige wiederkunft des Gleichen is a very different concept from the Übermensch. It is not entirely clear, but if the two are combined, I reckon he'd envision the latter as something what might indeed overcome the former. (Admittedly that is a bit speculative, though.)

 

[dot]

dot does not believe in an independent self and if he'd want to do so, I'd smack his a$$!

--- dot's dependent self