Do 'I' actually exist?

[charlou]

+ I don't think ones concept of oneself, and existence are synonymous.

Agreed. I think it might be worth separating a "concept of self" from the experience of self. I doubt very much that any other terrestrial lifeform has a "concept of self"; that needs words, symbols, associations, logic...

But I would not say the same about an experiential self. Some form of internal perception of oneself as an active agent in the world, even without the complexity and internal narrative that swirls around our own human experience of self, is likely to occur in a greater or lesser extent in many creatures...

I meant separation of 'concept of self' and 'actual existence'.

Not everything that exists has a concept of self. We with our concept of self just happen to have an arrogant egocentric/anthropomorphic view of it.

[charlou]

+ I don't think ones concept of oneself, and existance are synonymous.

Agreed. I think it might be worth separating a "concept of self" from the experience of self. I doubt very much that any other terrestrial lifeform has a "concept of self"; that needs words, symbols, associations, logic...

But I would not say the same about an experiential self. Some form of internal perception of oneself as an active agent in the world, even without the complexity and internal narrative that swirls around our own human experience of self, is likely to occur in a greater or lesser extent in many creatures...

Yes, I get this ... and agree too, when talking solely about what we define as lifeforms, yes.

My previous post was including everything that exists, living or not.

[FBM]

If memory were the 'I', the Self, then what about people who have lost their memory? Are they no longer selves?

For them, they're the version of self that they're left with. What you or I think of them is irrelevant (we're talking about the concept of "self" here) .. that goes for anything in existance, actually. A germ is whatever concept of "self" it holds, as is a rock, a flower, a dog or me. "Self" is self defining, and if a rock has no sense of "self", an autistic person has some non-descript notion, and I am self aware, then that is the correct version in each case.

It seems that this eliminates the possibility of any definition of 'self' at all, and anything goes. If that's the case, can I not decide that I'm a jelly donut without fear of confinement in a mental health facility? (I would choose to be a dildo, by the way, if I thought I could get away with it. )


Also, do germs, rocks and flowers hold concepts of Self? They might, but I'd be quite surprised. I've seen no evidence to support the claim.

I agree that both the subjective and objective (as if there were such a thing) perspectives should be accounted for, though. In Buddhism, the concept of anatta is from a subjective perspective. As the book I linked to explains, for the Buddha there was no objective perspective. What is is what's experienced or capable of being experienced. What the Buddha is described as having done is approach the question from the subjective perspective, analyze the human experience and come up empty, wrt anything that endures throughout one's lifetime that is identical (strict definition) to that which came out of one's mother.

[JimC]

Jim, I agree with everything you've said so far, but I would definitely extend the no-self thing to consciousness. Consciousness isn't an entity, either. It's an ongoing process, hardly steady and hardly the same from moment to moment. More than anything, it's a fleeting emergent property. In the same way that you might analyze the whole human in the search for a Self, you can examine consciousness itself for self-hood. Is the consciousness reading this post the same one as was born on your birth day? Is it the same consciousness that graduated high school? The same consciousness that woke up this morning? If you answer 'yes', I'd challenge you to pinpoint something that remained unchanged throughout.

Most people at that point would resort to producing abstract concepts. But when people talk about their 'I', do you think they mean that their 'I' is only an abstraction or something concrete? In my experience, people think of themselves as concrete beings, so abstractions such as tendencies or patterns of behavior wouldn't match, seems.

Here's a bit that includes some discussion of how and where the first person perspective is produced in the brain:
http://home.uchicago.edu/decety/publica ... tyNN01.pdf

I very much take your point about the fleeting and effervescent nature of consciousness. What I think I am saying is that, for very good evolutionary reasons, a vital function for consciousness is to produce, most of the time at least, an illusory inner "agent" that appears to be the source of the decisions to act in the world. In various situations (dreams, meditation, hallucigenic drugs), the self-generating process fails, or at least acts differently, so we become aware of the magician's tricks, which normally we ignore...

And as for people thinking of themselves as "concrete", the concrete self is simply an internal stance that is effective for acting in the world, not a thing in it self. But it is a stance that works best when you don't question it too much... (only in a pragmatic sense; questioning it is fun when one is well fed, and a sabertooth tiger isn't about to eat one's kids...)

[FBM]

Jim, I agree with everything you've said so far, but I would definitely extend the no-self thing to consciousness. Consciousness isn't an entity, either. It's an ongoing process, hardly steady and hardly the same from moment to moment. More than anything, it's a fleeting emergent property. In the same way that you might analyze the whole human in the search for a Self, you can examine consciousness itself for self-hood. Is the consciousness reading this post the same one as was born on your birth day? Is it the same consciousness that graduated high school? The same consciousness that woke up this morning? If you answer 'yes', I'd challenge you to pinpoint something that remained unchanged throughout.

Most people at that point would resort to producing abstract concepts. But when people talk about their 'I', do you think they mean that their 'I' is only an abstraction or something concrete? In my experience, people think of themselves as concrete beings, so abstractions such as tendencies or patterns of behavior wouldn't match, seems.

Here's a bit that includes some discussion of how and where the first person perspective is produced in the brain:
http://home.uchicago.edu/decety/publica ... tyNN01.pdf

I very much take your point about the fleeting and effervescent nature of consciousness. What I think I am saying is that, for very good evolutionary reasons, a vital function for consciousness is to produce, most of the time at least, an illusory inner "agent" that appears to be the source of the decisions to act in the world. In various situations (dreams, meditation, hallucigenic drugs), the self-generating process fails, or at least acts differently, so we become aware of the magician's tricks, which normally we ignore...

And as for people thinking of themselves as "concrete", the concrete self is simply an internal stance that is effective for acting in the world, not a thing in it self. But it is a stance that works best when you don't question it too much... (only in a pragmatic sense; questioning it is fun when one is well fed, and a sabertooth tiger isn't about to eat one's kids...)

Well put!

[JimC]

FBM wrote:

...What the Buddha is described as having done is approach the question from the subjective perspective, analyze the human experience and come up empty...

I approach this from 2 completely different angles...

On the one hand, "coming up empty" is a relief, and a blessing. So many takes on internal subjective experience by humans across the ages have come up with prescriptions, with gods, with devils, with a whole swirl of internal narrative that magically becomes the Truth... The red-hot pincers are not far behind...

On the other hand, I assert that he was missing the vital tools to painstakingly decipher, little by little, a pattern about how the universe works, whether our consciousness was here or not...

Enter Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and a host of hominids testing their predictions and models with care, honesty and humility..

(well, sometimes without the humility... )

[charlou]

If memory were the 'I', the Self, then what about people who have lost their memory? Are they no longer selves?

For them, they're the version of self that they're left with. What you or I think of them is irrelevant (we're talking about the concept of "self" here) .. that goes for anything in existance, actually. A germ is whatever concept of "self" it holds, as is a rock, a flower, a dog or me. "Self" is self defining, and if a rock has no sense of "self", an autistic person has some non-descript notion, and I am self aware, then that is the correct version in each case.

It seems that this eliminates the possibility of any definition of 'self' at all, and anything goes. If that's the case, can I not decide that I'm a jelly donut without fear of confinement in a mental health facility? (I would choose to be a dildo, by the way, if I thought I could get away with it. )

I'm defining self as the version one perceives at any given time. A rock has none, a flower has none, a dog or a rat - who knows what version? .. an autistic person or a stroke 'victim' - different again .. You and I - our own versions ...

I'm not talking about fantasy versions (genuine delusion or misconception is not the same as deliberate fantasy) .. but actual notions of self. I'm rather surprised you would seriously think otherwise.

Also, do germs, rocks and flowers hold concepts of Self? They might, but I'd be quite surprised. I've seen no evidence to support the claim.

As I said, they are the version of self they have .. if that is no version of self then that's the version they have. The concept of self is separate to the fact of existence.

I agree that both the subjective and objective (as if there were such a thing) perspectives should be accounted for, though. In Buddhism, the concept of anatta is from a subjective perspective. As the book I linked to explains, for the Buddha there was no objective perspective. What is is what's experienced or capable of being experienced. What the Buddha is described as having done is approach the question from the subjective perspective, analyze the human experience and come up empty, wrt anything that endures throughout one's lifetime that is identical (strict definition) to that which came out of one's mother.

Ever considered stepping outside your chosen path to wisdom to listen to the thoughts of people who aren't quoting published philosophy and dogmas?

[FBM]

...On the other hand, I assert that he was missing the vital tools to painstakingly decipher, little by little, a pattern about how the universe works, whether our consciousness was here or not...

Enter Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and a host of hominids testing their predictions and models with care, honesty and humility..

(well, sometimes without the humility... )

But Buddhism isn't about ontology or cosmology. If you're familiar with the Pali Canon, the Buddha specifically refused to speculate about such things, as they were beyond the scope of his teachings, which were about the subjective experience of being. In that, he had all the tools that we have today. The language is 2,500 years old, and the cultural/intellectual environment he was responding to is gone, but if you take the time, through textual analysis, to interpret his message, it's still relevant to us today, as is much of what Socrates, Pyrrho, Homer, etc, observed.

[JimC]

...On the other hand, I assert that he was missing the vital tools to painstakingly decipher, little by little, a pattern about how the universe works, whether our consciousness was here or not...

Enter Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and a host of hominids testing their predictions and models with care, honesty and humility..

(well, sometimes without the humility... )

But Buddhism isn't about ontology or cosmology. If you're familiar with the Pali Canon, the Buddha specifically refused to speculate about such things, as they were beyond the scope of his teachings, which were about the subjective experience of being. In that, he had all the tools that we have today. The language is 2,500 years old, and the cultural/intellectual environment he was responding to is gone, but if you take the time, through textual analysis, to interpret his message, it's still relevant to us today, as is much of what Socrates, Pyrrho, Homer, etc, observed.

And refusing to speculate in such circumstances is honest and applaudable. The bits and pieces I have picked up about buddhism appeal to me within a certain dimension; they resinate with many aspects of modern physics and cognitive science, and they have an internal peace and humility which I can appreciate. However, to me, a more compelling withdrawal from my own, minor and egotistical concerns is to take onboard a synthesis of modern science, a Darwin and Sagan oriented picture of a huge cosmos and a tree of life that is totally awe inspiring.

[FBM]

I'm not talking about fantasy versions (genuine delusion or misconception is not the same as deliberate fantasy) .. but actual notions of self. I'm rather surprised you would seriously think otherwise.

I hope I didn't sound dismissive there. I think what I'm getting at is that a "notion" of self-hood isn't actually self-hood. A notion may very well be a mistaken one. If not, then any notion is as good as any other, and there's no way to define Self at all.

As I said, they are the version of self they have .. if that is no version of self then that's the version they have.

I have to admit that I can't understand what you're saying here.

The concept of self is separate to the fact of existence.

Agreed!

I agree that both the subjective and objective (as if there were such a thing) perspectives should be accounted for, though. In Buddhism, the concept of anatta is from a subjective perspective. As the book I linked to explains, for the Buddha there was no objective perspective. What is is what's experienced or capable of being experienced. What the Buddha is described as having done is approach the question from the subjective perspective, analyze the human experience and come up empty, wrt anything that endures throughout one's lifetime that is identical (strict definition) to that which came out of one's mother.

Ever considered stepping outside your chosen path to wisdom to listen to the thoughts of people who aren't quoting published philosophy and dogmas?

If I were asking an in-depth question about horses, I'd do well to go straight to an equestrian, wouldn't I? Anyway, I've referred to the conventional takes on selfhood many times above.

Are you suggesting that there is a ghost in the machine? If not, what?

[FBM]

And refusing to speculate in such circumstances is honest and applaudable. The bits and pieces I have picked up about buddhism appeal to me within a certain dimension; they resinate with many aspects of modern physics and cognitive science, and they have an internal peace and humility which I can appreciate. However, to me, a more compelling withdrawal from my own, minor and egotistical concerns is to take onboard a synthesis of modern science, a Darwin and Sagan oriented picture of a huge cosmos and a tree of life that is totally awe inspiring.

We are indeed birds of a feather, it seems. If we differ in anything, it might be in the weight placed on the subjective perspective. Ultimately, we have nothing but a subjective perspective, but I, too, base my ontology and cosmology on science, not speculation or wishful thinking. I'm not only willing to admit the unsavory likelihood that, based on the evidence, "I" am incredibly small and insignificant in cosmological terms (from science), but that when I analyze experience vis a vis what it means to be an entity, "I" come up short (from Buddhist philosophy).

[JimC]

And refusing to speculate in such circumstances is honest and applaudable. The bits and pieces I have picked up about buddhism appeal to me within a certain dimension; they resinate with many aspects of modern physics and cognitive science, and they have an internal peace and humility which I can appreciate. However, to me, a more compelling withdrawal from my own, minor and egotistical concerns is to take onboard a synthesis of modern science, a Darwin and Sagan oriented picture of a huge cosmos and a tree of life that is totally awe inspiring.

We are indeed birds of a feather, it seems. If we differ in anything, it might be in the weight placed on the subjective perspective. Ultimately, we have nothing but a subjective perspective, but I, too, base my ontology and cosmology on science, not speculation or wishful thinking. I'm not only willing to admit the unsavory likelihood that, based on the evidence, "I" am incredibly small and insignificant in cosmological terms (from science), but that when I analyze experience vis a vis what it means to be an entity, "I" come up short (from Buddhist philosophy).

And, there is always gin!

(or soju...)

[Trolldor]

what it means to be an entity

And this is what annoys me.

What does it have to 'mean' anything? We can't you just 'be'. Why does it have to have some relevance or purpose or attributable characteristics beyond "Oh, would you look at that?"

[FBM]

And, there is always gin!

(or soju...)

It's that time of the day here, too.

[charlou]

I'm not talking about fantasy versions (genuine delusion or misconception is not the same as deliberate fantasy) .. but actual notions of self. I'm rather surprised you would seriously think otherwise.

I hope I didn't sound dismissive there. I think what I'm getting at is that a "notion" of self-hood isn't actually self-hood. A notion may very well be a mistaken one. If not, then any notion is as good as any other, and there's no way to define Self at all.

Ah .. what I'm saying is that the notion of self-hood is what ever the object perceives it to be, by definition: self-hood.


A rock has no perception of self, therefore has no notion of self-hood (yet the rock exists) .. a worm's perception of self wouldn't be far removed from a rock, no notion of self-hood (and yet the worm exists) ... a person with a damaged brain and a damaged perception of self has whatever version of self-hood it has (and yet the person exists) ... you have a perception of self, a notion of self-hood (and objectively you exist just as surely, but no more surely, than the rock or the worm or the damaged person). A scale of degrees of the notion of self-hood, if you will, from none at all to whatever version various cognizant beings have ...

My definition of self-hood is it is self perception, whatever notion of ones self one has.

and ... whatever perception of self-hood an object has does not equate with what constitutes that object's actual existence.