If we don't have souls...

[Animavore]

There is no permanent "self" IMO. It's nothing but a conglomeration of memories, thoughts/feelings, ever in a state of flux, ever changing, never the same water passing through its bed.

The self-image is an artificially made creation, purported by its desire to prolong its existence. Basically "self" is creating the "self" all the time, something along the lines of dog chasing it's own tale, and it's existence is based on time, being memory.

That's what I was driving at. You put it better than me.

[Beelzebub2]

Thanks.

[FBM]

There is no permanent "self" IMO. It's nothing but a conglomeration of memories, thoughts/feelings, ever in a state of flux, ever changing, never the same water passing through its bed.

The self-image is an artificially made creation, purported by its desire to prolong its existence. Basically "self" is creating the "self" all the time, something along the lines of dog chasing it's own tale, and it's existence is based on time, being memory.

That's what I was driving at. You put it better than me.

Seconded. +1 for ryøkan.

[Trinity]

Wow! You just reminded me of my dream! A bit like ouroboros but not

I dreamed that there were loads and loads of different coloured hippos; all colours of the rainbow and black and white and suddenly some colours started to chase, catch and eat other colours. I was shocked in my dream and wondering what the hell it was all about when all of a sudden there was only one black and one white hippo left. In my dream, the image was a bit Escher like and I just had this sense that there would be no winner as they were both eating their own tails.
Weird. I'm going to go away and think about that for a while...

(move this if it's not appropriate!)

[FBM]

Wow! You just reminded me of my dream! A bit like ouroboros but not

I dreamed that there were loads and loads of different coloured hippos; all colours of the rainbow and black and white and suddenly some colours started to chase, catch and eat other colours. I was shocked in my dream and wondering what the hell it was all about when all of a sudden there was only one black and one white hippo left. In my dream, the image was a bit Escher like and I just had this sense that there would be no winner as they were both eating their own tails.
Weird. I'm going to go away and think about that for a while...

(move this if it's not appropriate!)

I think it's just about right...

[charlou]

There is no permanent "self" IMO. It's nothing but a conglomeration of memories, thoughts/feelings, ever in a state of flux, ever changing, never the same water passing through its bed.

Very well put.


And yet, look at how culture and tradition can fix aspects of 'self' in perpetuity, so that the self becomes the embodiment and the vessel of the culture and vice-versa.

[Geoff]

There is no permanent "self" IMO. It's nothing but a conglomeration of memories, thoughts/feelings, ever in a state of flux, ever changing, never the same water passing through its bed.

The self-image is an artificially made creation, purported by its desire to prolong its existence. Basically "self" is creating the "self" all the time, something along the lines of dog chasing it's own tale, and it's existence is based on time, being memory.

You grok "self".

[Trinity]

I know one thing for sure; that anything I think right now is not set in stone, even what I said about knowing one thing for sure. Maybe not having any conclusions about anything leaves one more open and awake to what actually is..

[AshtonBlack]

+666 for Ryokan.

The mind is a fantastic example of evolution. IMHO Soul=Mind=Self.

[Meekychuppet]

I take the word 'soul' as a metaphor.

[FBM]

I take the word 'soul' as a metaphor.

It is useful as a metaphor, but not without consequences. That is, some people hear the metaphor and take it literally. Like children. Well, unless you're talking about James Brown and Aretha Franklin kinda soul.

'Mind' is also just a convenient fiction. It's not even a thing, really.

[Transgirlofnofaith]

The mind is something we don't fully understand, and therefore have a hard time defining. But just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that we should jump to the conclusion that there's no such thing. By the way, FBM, I think your title and OP was a little of a false dichotomy, along the lines of the "if there's no god, why be good" argument. You could have titled it "how would you define self or consciousness". First off, our self is always redefining, because it isn't just stored memory, there's an active component, which depending on how its working then and what it's focused on has an effect both on memory and the active components. Self is both as ethereal as a neutrino and as solid as a supermassive black hole. Also, there are more than one active self-aware processes. And this is further complicated by the fact that these have a very poor ability to self-identify themselves from the other active processes. And one may be handling more than one thing at a time. There are also stored strands of thought and memory, which may include people you'd like to beat up or whether the recession is going to become a depression or not. So overall I'd say consciousness is more like a squirming bag of anxious rats than a gently humming supercomputer.

[FBM]

The mind is something we don't fully understand, and therefore have a hard time defining. But just because we don't understand it doesn't mean that we should jump to the conclusion that there's no such thing. By the way, FBM, I think your title and OP was a little of a false dichotomy, along the lines of the "if there's no god, why be good" argument. You could have titled it "how would you define self or consciousness". First off, our self is always redefining, because it isn't just stored memory, there's an active component, which depending on how its working then and what it's focused on has an effect both on memory and the active components. Self is both as ethereal as a neutrino and as solid as a supermassive black hole. Also, there are more than one active self-aware processes. And this is further complicated by the fact that these have a very poor ability to self-identify themselves from the other active processes. And one may be handling more than one thing at a time. There are also stored strands of thought and memory, which may include people you'd like to beat up or whether the recession is going to become a depression or not. So overall I'd say consciousness is more like a squirming bag of anxious rats than a gently humming supercomputer.

I don't see how you can conclude that it's along the lines of "if there's no god...". It was just a question, and as far as I know, there was no connotation of ethical consequences.

If we don't have souls, then what is the ultimate nature of individual identity? Is the self 'just' a temporary arrangement of atoms, molecules and energy? I'm interested in hearing what conclusions some of you guys have arrived at. In a nutshell, who/what is you about the individual with your name, habits, thoughts and history?

I don't see anything with regards to ethics there.

Also:

You could have titled it "how would you define self or consciousness".

Are you saying self=consciousness?

and:

Self is both as ethereal as a neutrino and as solid as a supermassive black hole.

I think I'm a little to dense (har) to understand that statement. Please elaborate.

[Law's Wolf]

'Mind' is also just a convenient fiction. It's not even a thing, really.

Although, to be fair, it is quite useful to study the mind instead of the brain. The mind is a bit easier to grasp and easier to manipulate, the brain is a lot harder to study. Also, considering the evidence we have that identity theory is correct, both give us the same information (just with different rigour).

[FBM]

'Mind' is also just a convenient fiction. It's not even a thing, really.

Although, to be fair, it is quite useful to study the mind instead of the brain. The mind is a bit easier to grasp and easier to manipulate, the brain is a lot harder to study. Also, considering the evidence we have that identity theory is correct, both give us the same information (just with different rigour).

Agreed. That's what I meant by the 'convenient' part. The word is a place-holder for a wide range of associated behaviors and events, and that's a good thing, but when we use such place-holders routinely, without examination, we (in the generic sense) tend to assume that the mind has thing-like qualities, which AFAICT it doesn't really. Another way of putting it is that 'mind' is fine for conventional reality, but it doesn't have ultimate reality. Whatever that is.

And I think much the same is true for our 'selves', our identity. Conventionally, a person must behave as though s/he were a singular, discrete entity that persists through time and space. However, when you examine things more closely, that assumption unravels. I think that assumption is the foundation for the belief in an eternal soul, afterlife, etc, and fuels religious thinking. That said, it's certainly possible to assume one's singular, persistent identity and not be religious (I assume everyone here does so in everyday life), but I think there's something valuable in examining it more closely.