A Quantifiable Self

[Ana the Ist]

So...

Does anyone here think that there is aspect of self which can be measured beyond the meat, bones, and chemicals we are? Can a thought process actually be a process we can repeat/measure/recreate without your brain? Can we even recreate a thought process we once possessed (in our own mind)? Will we be able to recreate your mind using some complex mathematical algorithms?

I guess...what I'm asking here is...is every part of what we recognize as "self" intangible? I'd like to think not...but I'm fairly certain it is.

 

[juvenissun]

So...

Does anyone here think that there is aspect of self which can be measured beyond the meat, bones, and chemicals we are? Can a thought process actually be a process we can repeat/measure/recreate without your brain? Can we even recreate a thought process we once possessed (in our own mind)? Will we be able to recreate your mind using some complex mathematical algorithms?

I guess...what I'm asking here is...is every part of what we recognize as "self" intangible? I'd like to think not...but I'm fairly certain it is.

Can we make a human-like robot? People are trying.
Actually, it is a very old question. It would be interest to see what is the nature of a human clone.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Can we make a human-like robot? People are trying.
Actually, it is a very old question. It would be interest to see what is the nature of a human clone.

I imagine the clone being like any other person...perhaps with some unusual identity problems. I don't really need a robot for this example either. Could we take your mind and put it in something else? Or at least recreate that mind in another structure (organic or not)? Is your mind a byproduct of the structure it inhabits and nothing more?

Maybe more importantly, does self even exist apart from this moment? Is it so ...I dunno how to word this. I guess I feel like "self" only exists the moment we make ourselves aware of it.

 

[TillICollapse]

In other words, can the "self" transcend one's body.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In other words, can the "self" transcend one's body.

Well, I don't want to make it sound all hocus-pocus...but sure. The more I think of it though, the harder time I have identifying a "self" at all.

 

[TillICollapse]

Well, I don't want to make it sound all hocus-pocus...but sure. The more I think of it though, the harder time I have identifying a "self" at all.

Well what if that is part of the "problem" ... what if definitively identifying self requires the ability for it to transcend the body in some fashion, regardless of whether you put it into a machine, a clone, or whatever.

If "self" is tied inextricably to the meat/bones/chemicals a person is, then the "self" is arguably indistinguishable from the meat/bones/chemicals (MBC) of that person. Even if it's an emergent phenomena of the MBC ... so long as it is inextricably one and the same as the MBC, it isn't identifiable in a definitive manner. Thus, we can theorize about it's existence ... but we have no PROOF the self exists, apart from the MBC. We have evidence (and arguably proof) that your MBC exists, but the "self" ... is not definitive.

If self awareness is a sort of introspective meta-testimony (i.e. "I am here to tell you that my self exists, because I am able to perceive it") ... we have YOUR testimony, but that's still not *proof*. Even if others agree your "self" exists ... point to it. Where is it ? If we still can only point to the MBC, it's still very much fluff and hard to identify definitively.

However, if the "self" is able to be separated from the MBC, THEN we have evidence it actually exists in a unique fashion. It is it's own thing, separate from the MBC. We can remove your organs and parts of your MBC, so we know those things exist and we can give definitions of them. However the "self" .... perhaps there will not be concrete agreement on a definition of "self" until we can actually show or prove it exists *separate* from the body. In other words, until the "self" can transcend the body. So maybe many of the answers to questions involving "self" would become evident if you were able to show it exists apart from the MBC "host" body, as it were.

The word transcend does not need to be used in a hocus-pocus manner.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well what if that is part of the "problem" ... what if definitively identifying self requires the ability for it to transcend the body in some fashion, regardless of whether you put it into a machine, a clone, or whatever.

If "self" is tied inextricably to the meat/bones/chemicals a person is, then the "self" is arguably indistinguishable from the meat/bones/chemicals (MBC) of that person. Even if it's an emergent phenomena of the MBC ... so long as it is inextricably one and the same as the MBC, it isn't identifiable in a definitive manner. Thus, we can theorize about it's existence ... but we have no PROOF the self exists, apart from the MBC. We have evidence (and arguably proof) that your MBC exists, but the "self" ... is not definitive.

If self awareness is a sort of introspective meta-testimony (i.e. "I am here to tell you that my self exists, because I am able to perceive it") ... we have YOUR testimony, but that's still not *proof*. Even if others agree your "self" exists ... point to it. Where is it ? If we still can only point to the MBC, it's still very much fluff and hard to identify definitively.

However, if the "self" is able to be separated from the MBC, THEN we have evidence it actually exists in a unique fashion. It is it's own thing, separate from the MBC. We can remove your organs and parts of your MBC, so we know those things exist and we can give definitions of them. However the "self" .... perhaps there will not be concrete agreement on a definition of "self" until we can actually show or prove it exists *separate* from the body. In other words, until the "self" can transcend the body. So maybe many of the answers to questions involving "self" would become evident if you were able to show it exists apart from the MBC "host" body, as it were.

The word transcend does not need to be used in a hocus-pocus manner.

First off, thanks for rewording the OP so well. Seriously.

Secondly, I wanna say I love how you condensed "meat, bones, chemicals" to "MBC"...bravo.

Thirdly, I know you didn't mean "transcend" in a hocus-pocus way, it's just that's the only way I see it used on here and I don't want anyone getting confused.

 

[Paradoxum]

Maybe current physics can make sense of consciousness (I assume the conscious Self is what you mean).

My intuition is that understanding consciousnes maybe need a big rethink of what we consider part of the universe, since consciousness (qualia) is so radically different from anything else in the universe that we know about.

I don't doubt that neurology can figure out which brain states correspond to conscious states, but that doesn't explain why we experience things like colour and texture, rather than be merely biological robots living in mental darkness.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe current physics can make sense of consciousness (I assume the conscious Self is what you mean).

My intuition is that understanding consciousnes maybe need a big rethink of what we consider part of the universe, since consciousness (qualia) is so radically different from anything else in the universe that we know about.

I don't doubt that neurology can figure out which brain states correspond to conscious states, but that doesn't explain why we experience things like colour and texture, rather than being biological robots living in mental darkness.

Actually, I don't know if that's what I mean.

Do you think of consciousness and self as the same?

Because I never did till you just mentioned it...and thinking of it now I don't think they are.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe it would help if I defined "self" as "who/what you are".

 

[TillICollapse]

First off, thanks for rewording the OP so well. Seriously.

Cool

Secondly, I wanna say I love how you condensed "meat, bones, chemicals" to "MBC"...bravo.

There's so much drama in the M-B-C (Snoop reference) ...

Thirdly, I know you didn't mean "transcend" in a hocus-pocus way, it's just that's the only way I see it used on here and I don't want anyone getting confused.

No worries, I was also clarifying I wasn't using it in a "woo" manner

 

[Ana the Ist]

Cool

There's so much drama in the M-B-C (Snoop reference) ...

No worries, I was also clarifying I wasn't using it in a "woo" manner

If/When I get banned on here, I'm coming back as "DramaindaMBC."

 

[Paradoxum]

Actually, I don't know if that's what I mean.

Do you think of consciousness and self as the same?

Because I never did till you just mentioned it...and thinking of it now I don't think they are.

I'd agree that they mean different things, but if it doesn't involve consciousness at all, then I don't think there's a problem understanding it. It would just be some very complex brain interactions. But as far as I understand the Self, it involves consciousness at least.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd agree that they mean different things, but if it doesn't involve consciousness at all, then I don't think there's a problem understanding it. It would just be some very complex brain interactions. But as far as I understand the Self, it involves consciousness at least.

I don't see consciousness as anything different from the ability to think...so sure, any thinking involves consciousness.

What I mean is, describe yourself...then I'll tell you how you're wrong, then we can argue over who is more correct. We probably can't get a real lock on it. No one will ever know you, including yourself. And does that self exist past when we spoke about it? Did it exist before we brought it up? Did it exist at all?

Or are you just MBC?

 

[TillICollapse]

If/When I get banned on here, I'm coming back as "DramaindaMBC."

Haha niiiicceeee

 

[Davian]

I don't see consciousness as anything different from the ability to think...so sure, any thinking involves consciousness.

What I mean is, describe yourself...then I'll tell you how you're wrong, then we can argue over who is more correct. We probably can't get a real lock on it. No one will ever know you, including yourself. And does that self exist past when we spoke about it? Did it exist before we brought it up? Did it exist at all?

Or are you just MBC?

That is how I understand it. From Amazon.com's book description for Being No One:

"According to Thomas Metzinger, no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a "transparent self-model.""

I created a thread on this here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That is how I understand it. From Amazon.com's book description for Being No One:

"According to Thomas Metzinger, no such things as selves exist in the world: nobody ever had or was a self. All that exists are phenomenal selves, as they appear in conscious experience. The phenomenal self, however, is not a thing but an ongoing process; it is the content of a "transparent self-model.""

I created a thread on this here.

I hate philosophy for always showing me this...that every thought I've had has already been had and had better.

So...what do you think? No actual "self" exists? I could be you and you could be me?

 

[TillICollapse]

I'd agree that they mean different things, but if it doesn't involve consciousness at all, then I don't think there's a problem understanding it. It would just be some very complex brain interactions. But as far as I understand the Self, it involves consciousness at least.

Does a digital toaster exhibit consciousness ? At what point does a complex system exhibit "consciousness" ... is it when it can pass the Turing test ?

 

[TillICollapse]

I hate philosophy for always showing me this...that every thought I've had has already been had and had better.

So...what do you think? No actual "self" exists? I could be you and you could be me?

This is actually where I think the Moses/burning bush story goes pretty deep, if you think about it. Pretty deep considering it's not Greek in origin lol ... I'll try not to make this hocus-pocus lol ...

Moses encounters "God" in this form of the fire or light within the bush, and basically asks, "Who should I say you are ?" and the response is translated into English as "I AM".

To me, that's a very interesting concept to consider, because of the implications.

So consider this self-identification of "God" as "I am".

What would that make us ? Or what would that make me ?

Here's how I envision a similar conversation.

"What is your name ? Who should I say talked to me ?"

"Tell them I Am talked to you. Tell them, I Am."

"If you are 'I AM' ... then who am I ?"

"I Am, where as you ... you are."

In many ways, the name chosen by "God" in that account concerning Moses is one I've always found to be profound on a philosophical, and identification of "self" level. Almost like a flat out "I am self-awareness, but not your self awareness" type of level.

IOW ... hypothetically, if I was going to claim that my "self" existed, I might say, "I am,". And if someone were to ask me, "Well who is God then ?" I might say, "God is." ... in a phenomena similar to the concept of my own "self". Interesting to think about in that context, perhaps, as one tries to figure out if a "self" even exists in the first place

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is actually where I think the Moses/burning bush story goes pretty deep, if you think about it. Pretty deep considering it's not Greek in origin lol ... I'll try not to make this hocus-pocus lol ...

Moses encounters "God" in this form of the fire or light within the bush, and basically asks, "Who should I say you are ?" and the response is translated into English as "I AM".

To me, that's a very interesting concept to consider, because of the implications.

So consider this self-identification of "God" as "I am".

What would that make us ? Or what would that make me ?

Here's how I envision a similar conversation.

"What is your name ? Who should I say talked to me ?"

"Tell them I Am talked to you. Tell them, I Am."

"If you are 'I AM' ... then who am I ?"

"I Am, where as you ... you are."

In many ways, the name chosen by "God" in that account concerning Moses is one I've always found to be profound on a philosophical, and identification of "self" level. Almost like a flat out "I am self-awareness, but not your self awareness" type of level.

IOW ... hypothetically, if I was going to claim that my "self" existed, I might say, "I am,". And if someone were to ask me, "Well who is God then ?" I might say, "God is." ... in a phenomena similar to the concept of my own "self". Interesting to think about in that context, perhaps, as one tries to figure out if a "self" even exists in the first place

I can never get past the "burning bush" part without a giggle. Honestly, who follows the words of a bush? How does Moses decide he's speaking to a god and not a rather intelligent and somewhat telepathic bush? (Why wouldn't a bush respond, "I AM"? What else would it say? "I'm Fred...the bush...mind putting me out?")

Bushes don't need names.