Do 'I' actually exist?

[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.

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.

Ah! Cool! No problem, then. I wouldn't support the notion that self-awareness (perception of self-hood) correlates with actual existence, either.

[charlou]

Ah! Cool! No problem, then. I wouldn't support the notion that self-awareness (perception of self-hood) correlates with actual existence, either.

I gathered that.

It's the definition of "self-hood" that we seem to be a variance with.

[FBM]

Ah! Cool! No problem, then. I wouldn't support the notion that self-awareness (perception of self-hood) correlates with actual existence, either.

I gathered that.

It's the definition of "self-hood" that we seem to be a variance with.

Seems so, dunnit?

Anyway, I think we actually do agree a lot more than the words we choose will allow. When I say that 'self' is a convention, and you say that 'self' is whatever the being in question perceives it to be, are we not saying very close to the same thing?

[Rum]

Stumbled on this which sheds some light on this thread.

[Robert_S]

Sorry to interrupt but...

I was looking about Youtube for "Consciousness" and all the mystical shit that came on the first page severely upset my stomach. I thought I was going to have puke free New Years Eves when I quit drinking!

[Ronja]

I love the way Dennett describes consciousness in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html

[FBM]

Stumbled on this which sheds some light on this thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psOcedY4Ywc/youtube]

I love the way Dennett describes consciousness in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html

Both of these were very helpful. Thanks, Rum and Ronja.

One thing that I'd hoped Dennet would touch on is the observation of consciousness as an ongoing activity, not as an entity. As an analogy, I can feel a rhythmic pulsing in my chest and I know it's my heart beating. Thump, thump, thump. Each of those thumps is distinct in time from the others. They're separate events. However, we can - and routinely do - abstract and reify that experience into a singular noun 'my heatbeat', for ease of communication about it. But that linguistic convenience doesn't change the fact that each of the thumps is distinct from the others. There is no 'my heartbeat' that started up in the womb and has continued until now. That's an illusion of perspective much like Dennet's examples. We get fooled by our own use of language into making real entities out of abstractions.

Consciousness is an ongoing series of discrete events. There's no entity 'my consciousness'. Believing that there is such a thing is to fall prey to the illusion. Furthermore, it's just a belief. There is no evidence for it. There is evidence for individual heartbeats and firing of neurons, but when you look closely, you can't find 'my heartbeat' or 'my consciousness'. Just the fleeting instances of phenomena. The mind connects them all together, much as it does in the cube example in Ronja's link, but it's a fiction. A useful fiction (usually), but nonetheless a fiction. Self is such a fiction, as far as I can tell, and that's at the core of the Buddha's concept of anatta. It's sad that such an observation is most often represented by woo-addicts and pushers, as Robert_S pointed out.

[charlou]

Stumbled on this which sheds some light on this thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psOcedY4Ywc/youtube]

I love the way Dennett describes consciousness in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html

Both of these were very helpful. Thanks, Rum and Ronja.

One thing that I'd hoped Dennet would touch on is the observation of consciousness as an ongoing activity, not as an entity. As an analogy, I can feel a rhythmic pulsing in my chest and I know it's my heart beating. Thump, thump, thump. Each of those thumps is distinct in time from the others. They're separate events. However, we can - and routinely do - abstract and reify that experience into a singular noun 'my heatbeat', for ease of communication about it. But that linguistic convenience doesn't change the fact that each of the thumps is distinct from the others. There is no 'my heartbeat' that started up in the womb and has continued until now. That's an illusion of perspective much like Dennet's examples. We get fooled by our own use of language into making real entities out of abstractions.

Consciousness is an ongoing series of discrete events. There's no entity 'my consciousness'. Believing that there is such a thing is to fall prey to the illusion. Furthermore, it's just a belief. There is no evidence for it. There is evidence for individual heartbeats and firing of neurons, but when you look closely, you can't find 'my heartbeat' or 'my consciousness'. Just the fleeting instances of phenomena. The mind connects them all together, much as it does in the cube example in Ronja's link, but it's a fiction. A useful fiction (usually), but nonetheless a fiction. Self is such a fiction, as far as I can tell, and that's at the core of the Buddha's concept of anatta. It's sad that such an observation is most often represented by woo-addicts and pushers, as Robert_S pointed out.

I agree with everything you say here up until the bolded part, which to me is an odd conclusion to arrive at.

Every living thing that exists is made up of base elements that are constantly in exchange/renewal .. The fact of that does not mean that every living thing is a fiction, does it?

Perception of self is not a fiction (as distinct from how accurate, damaged or illusory the perception is). I agree that perception of self exists as a series of ongoing neurological instances rather than a static entity, but if you accept that word right there - exists - you must accept it's not a fiction at all.

Have you seen the French film, Genesis, FBM?

[FBM]

Stumbled on this which sheds some light on this thread.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psOcedY4Ywc/youtube]

I love the way Dennett describes consciousness in his TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_on ... sness.html

Both of these were very helpful. Thanks, Rum and Ronja.

One thing that I'd hoped Dennet would touch on is the observation of consciousness as an ongoing activity, not as an entity. As an analogy, I can feel a rhythmic pulsing in my chest and I know it's my heart beating. Thump, thump, thump. Each of those thumps is distinct in time from the others. They're separate events. However, we can - and routinely do - abstract and reify that experience into a singular noun 'my heatbeat', for ease of communication about it. But that linguistic convenience doesn't change the fact that each of the thumps is distinct from the others. There is no 'my heartbeat' that started up in the womb and has continued until now. That's an illusion of perspective much like Dennet's examples. We get fooled by our own use of language into making real entities out of abstractions.

Consciousness is an ongoing series of discrete events. There's no entity 'my consciousness'. Believing that there is such a thing is to fall prey to the illusion. Furthermore, it's just a belief. There is no evidence for it. There is evidence for individual heartbeats and firing of neurons, but when you look closely, you can't find 'my heartbeat' or 'my consciousness'. Just the fleeting instances of phenomena. The mind connects them all together, much as it does in the cube example in Ronja's link, but it's a fiction. A useful fiction (usually), but nonetheless a fiction. Self is such a fiction, as far as I can tell, and that's at the core of the Buddha's concept of anatta. It's sad that such an observation is most often represented by woo-addicts and pushers, as Robert_S pointed out.

I agree with everything you say here up until the bolded part, which to me is an odd conclusion to arrive at.

Every living thing that exists is made up of base elements that are constantly in exchange/renewal .. The fact of that does not mean that every living thing is a fiction, does it?

Perception of self is not a fiction (as distinct from how accurate, damaged or illusory the perception is). I agree that perception of self exists as a series of ongoing neurological instances rather than a static entity, but if you accept that word right there - exists - you must accept it's not a fiction at all.

I agree. The underlying substance that supports perception isn't, as far as I know, a fiction; that's why I earlier said that I'm not proposing anything nihilistic. There is something. And yes, the perception of self does exist. But when people talk about their 'I', are they really talking about a perception, or are they tacitly claiming/assuming the existence of a singular entity that abides throughout a lifetime with some identical essence? The routine mis-labelling/reification of a perception as an enduring entity is what I'm calling a fiction, not the perception itself.

Have you seen the French film, Genesis, FBM?

Nope, but if it's available on TPB, I will soon!

Edit: I should be more precise, since this is such a tricky topic: The perception of self does happen, and it exists (fleetingly) as it's happening. But to say the perception of self exists is to make a abstract singular noun sound like a true entity.

[FBM]

Charlou, do you have any more info about the French movie? Year of production, director, genre or something? I'm having a hard time finding it...

[charlou]

Edit: I should be more precise, since this is such a tricky topic: The perception of self does happen, and it exists (fleetingly) as it's happening. But to say the perception of self exists is to make a abstract singular noun sound like a true entity.

If "perception of self" is understood (as it is by you and I, and others) to be as you describe, then I think the statement that it 'exists' in the way described is appropriate. I don't see the argument that some, or many, people may think of self as an unchanging entity invalidates the fact that 'perception of self' exists.

I think this is no different to the misunderstanding due to lack of knowledge that people have about any other aspect of living existence. The living body is in constant flux, and exists as such. Just because many people aren't aware of that biological fact does not invalidate the fact of the existence of human body. You are being more precise in your understanding and definition of existence, that's all.

Charlou, do you have any more info about the French movie? Year of production, director, genre or something? I'm having a hard time finding it...

imdb: Genesis

viewer reviews

[FBM]

...You are being more precise in your understanding and definition of existence, that's all.

Yeah, when it comes to this sort of thing, I can be way too nit-picky over using language precisely. Sorry. It's just that when I write papers for philosophy classes, if I don't do that the prof rips my paper apart.

Charlou, do you have any more info about the French movie? Year of production, director, genre or something? I'm having a hard time finding it...

imdb: Genesis

viewer reviews

Found it! It'll be a slow download, but it looks like it'll be worth the wait. Cheers!

[charlou]

One reviewer observes, in part:

We are not made of atoms. Atoms flow through us like water in a river, but our life is more like the river - directing the flow of matter. Defying the laws of entropy that pull us towards decay. This refers to the fact that much of the tissues in our body is replaced every few days/months/years. So we are in fact a different 'person' to ourselves even just a few years ago.

[charlou]

...You are being more precise in your understanding and definition of existence, that's all.

Yeah, when it comes to this sort of thing, I can be way too nit-picky over using language precisely. Sorry. It's just that when I write papers for philosophy classes, if I don't do that the prof rips my paper apart.

I think it's important actually. How will other people come to understand something if those of who have knowledge, thoughts and ideas to impart aren't precise in detail and description of it?

[FBM]

...You are being more precise in your understanding and definition of existence, that's all.

Yeah, when it comes to this sort of thing, I can be way too nit-picky over using language precisely. Sorry. It's just that when I write papers for philosophy classes, if I don't do that the prof rips my paper apart.

I think it's important actually. How will other people come to understand something if those of who have knowledge, thoughts and ideas to impart aren't precise in detail and description of it?

I would do well to remember that Ratz isn't a grad school class, tho, and stop being so niggling over minutiae...