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

[Perfection]

Can you flesh this out a bit?

Well, basicly, think of humans as sort of like advanced complex computers. Computers are real life physical objects, but they are also mathematical entities that behave according to certain rules. I think that humans could have a similar such correspondence to a mathematical entity. So "you" could be described in (highly complex) mathematics.

So, this mathematical self arguably has an existence outside of the physical in the same way that numbers or equations do.

 

[Narz]

Cool, thanks for explaining. I kind of like that idea. Mathmatical essence de Narz

 

[Greizer85]

... this is a ridiculous topic. How exactly can a person ask the question when the actual term "Self" has not been defined conclusively by anyone?

How about we build the base of the house before deciding what windows to put on the third floor, lol.

Isn't it intuitive? Something that is aware of itself and its separateness from the rest of the world. I feel that *I* *am* this single entity, although I am in reality a complex web of different interacting processes - sensory input and its interpretations basically. The processes are so finely grained that most of the time *I* pay no attention to them. Self is an emergent property. Here more than anywhere, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In meditation one usually tries to become aware of the processes that comprise and give rise to the self, so as to eventually eradicate it through Enlightenment (total awareness; oneness with the Universe, what have you). I have some problems with this concept since, well, I don't want to lose my self. But if I am illusory, what is there to lose in the first place?

 

[Jet]

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

It could, but it wouldn't matter.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Computers are real life physical objects, but they are also mathematical entities that behave according to certain rules. I think that humans could have a similar such correspondence to a mathematical entity. So "you" could be described in (highly complex) mathematics.

I kind of like that idea. Mathmatical essence de Narz

Keep in mind that the rules, hence also the math, are fuzzy. If I bop you on the side of the head just enough to kill 3 neurons, are you still you? Obviously yes. What about 3 million neurons? 3 billion? 55 billion? (You have about 100 billion.) At some level the answer goes from "Yes" to "kinda sorta". Not to "no" (that happens at a much greater level of damage). Not to "either Yes or No, but we don't know which" (that would require a semantic precision to words like "person" or "Narz" that natural language just ain't got.) It goes to "kinda sorta".

Isn't it intuitive? Something that is aware of itself and its separateness from the rest of the world. I feel that *I* *am* this single entity, although I am in reality a complex web of different interacting processes - sensory input and its interpretations basically. The processes are so finely grained that most of the time *I* pay no attention to them. Self is an emergent property. Here more than anywhere, the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

In meditation one usually tries to become aware of the processes that comprise and give rise to the self, so as to eventually eradicate it through Enlightenment (total awareness; oneness with the Universe, what have you). I have some problems with this concept since, well, I don't want to lose my self. But if I am illusory, what is there to lose in the first place?

Thread winning comment

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, basicly, think of humans as sort of like advanced complex computers. Computers are real life physical objects, but they are also mathematical entities that behave according to certain rules. I think that humans could have a similar such correspondence to a mathematical entity. So "you" could be described in (highly complex) mathematics.

So, this mathematical self arguably has an existence outside of the physical in the same way that numbers or equations do.

Yes, but it is not so complicated:
1=1=all there is=the unity of existence=well, you know the drill....

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Somewhat on-topic regarding teleportation:

If or when this becomes a possibility, could you still defend the notion of a human soul?

If the "soul" gets transferred in the process, it's not completely immaterial and not really a soul, and if it doesn't the body would be soulless at arrival.

Has anything been said on this matter?

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

I believe that we do have a soul, and that the soul takes a person through multiple biological lifetimes in a quest to become someone greater, or something to that effect.

 

[Perfection]

Keep in mind that the rules, hence also the math, are fuzzy. If I bop you on the side of the head just enough to kill 3 neurons, are you still you? Obviously yes. What about 3 million neurons? 3 billion? 55 billion? (You have about 100 billion.) At some level the answer goes from "Yes" to "kinda sorta". Not to "no" (that happens at a much greater level of damage). Not to "either Yes or No, but we don't know which" (that would require a semantic precision to words like "person" or "Narz" that natural language just ain't got.) It goes to "kinda sorta".

I dunno about this portrayal. History matters. If you hit me on the head and killed three neurons, I would still be me but if you were to replicate me but leave out 3 neurons, I don't think the same would hold true.

Yes, but it is not so complicated:
1=1=all there is=the unity of existence=well, you know the drill....

Except that you're wrong. There are different things liek cars n' trucks n' penises and whatnot.

 

[Ayatollah So]

I dunno about this portrayal. History matters. If you hit me on the head and killed three neurons, I would still be me but if you were to replicate me but leave out 3 neurons, I don't think the same would hold true.

I agree with everything you just said, except for the "I dunno about this" part, which just leaves me wondering.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Well, basicly, think of humans as sort of like advanced complex computers. Computers are real life physical objects, but they are also mathematical entities that behave according to certain rules. I think that humans could have a similar such correspondence to a mathematical entity. So "you" could be described in (highly complex) mathematics.

So, this mathematical self arguably has an existence outside of the physical in the same way that numbers or equations do.

Perhaps. (10 Char)

 

[Perfection]

I agree with everything you just said, except for the "I dunno about this" part, which just leaves me wondering.

Well, it really gets into messy distinctions between different usages of the word, "self". Basicly, I believe that "self" is an index to a signal person at a single location, so we were to have a perfect replica of me in an alternate universe, that would not be me.

I suppose this gets into the "selfness" of my mathematical counterpart, and that's not something I have a very coherent answer on.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Well, it really gets into messy distinctions between different usages of the word, "self". Basicly, I believe that "self" is an index to a signal person at a single location, so we were to have a perfect replica of me in an alternate universe, that would not be me.

I suppose this gets into the "selfness" of my mathematical counterpart, and that's not something I have a very coherent answer on.

This would be a very interesting discussion in the Philosophy of Mathematics.

 

[Perfection]

Philosophy of Math is some seriously mindblowing stuff.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Philosophy of Math is some seriously mindblowing stuff.

Definitely. Ever read any of Russell's stuff on the topic?

Ironic side note, I have Dyscalculia. I absolutely hate it, because it leaves such a massive hole in my acquisition of knowledge.

 

[Agent327]

Well, basicly, think of humans as sort of like advanced complex computers. Computers are real life physical objects, but they are also mathematical entities that behave according to certain rules. I think that humans could have a similar such correspondence to a mathematical entity. So "you" could be described in (highly complex) mathematics.

So, this mathematical self arguably has an existence outside of the physical in the same way that numbers or equations do.

I appreciate your conclusion, but humans - unlike computers - can physically move through space and time.

If "self" is identical to "soul" (the notion of the soul is much older than that of self, just think of the Indian concept of soul migration), then the answer is that such an independent self does indeed exist. (In Western philosophy such a notion was adhered to by the Pythagorean school.)

Obviously, anyone's answer will depend on their definition of "self", though.

 

[Jazzmail]

Damage to the brain = alteration of the self.

There are plenty recorded observations and studies of the effects of brain damage in patients. Enough damage will radically change a personality and has many other interesting effects aswell.

All the evidence points against a transcendent soul.

 

[Bill3000]

I appreciate your conclusion, but humans - unlike computers - can physically move through space and time.

*throws a computer at JEELEN*

 

[Agent327]

(You missed!)

Damage to the brain = alteration of the self.

There are plenty recorded observations and studies of the effects of brain damage in patients. Enough damage will radically change a personality and has many other interesting effects aswell.

All the evidence points against a transcendent soul.

Your conclusion does not follow from your statement: you presuppose that the brain is identical to the self; following this any damage to the brain is identical to "damage" to the soul. The question is, however, if the brain is really identical to the self. (Also, does personality alteration result in "soul alteration"?) I would suggest a different preposition: self is not identical to personality. (A person may have multi-personality disorder; does this mean that the self is sick? Or does self/soul encompass something larger than meets the eye - i.e. mind?)

 

[Jazzmail]

I would suggest a different preposition: self is not identical to personality.

Fine, a "self" or "soul" as an undefined word with no known properties, could exist seperate from the brain.
It can, because it nolonger means anything that way.

If you propose that the self doesn't include personality, you should also propose what it does mean, or we won't get any further than talking about nothing.