A Quantifiable Self

[TillICollapse]

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.

I wanna make a joke about both marijuana and redheads now, but I don't want my post removed so I'll refrain

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wanna make a joke about both marijuana and redheads now, but I don't want my post removed so I'll refrain

We all thought it at least once. A squinty-eyed Moses stumbling through a cloud of smoke, gets to the bush rather baked out. Bush says, "Hey Moses, I'm god.". Moses says, "Yea...that's the ticket! I should write this down..."

No other gods...especially that stupid yellow cow Jake has us all following.

 

[TillICollapse]

We all thought it at least once. A squinty-eyed Moses stumbling through a cloud of smoke, gets to the bush rather baked out. Bush says, "Hey Moses, I'm god.". Moses says, "Yea...that's the ticket! I should write this down..."

No other gods...especially that stupid yellow cow Jake has us all following.

I wonder what the Hebrew for "dude" was ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well seriously....what would you be thinking if it read, "Moses came upon the cactus and ate a portion thereof, roughly 30mins later, god picked up Moses and took him on a personal tour of heaven and hell for about 4-5 days."

 

[TillICollapse]

Well seriously....what would you be thinking if it read, "Moses came upon the cactus and ate a portion thereof, roughly 30mins later, god picked up Moses and took him on a personal tour of heaven and hell for about 4-5 days."

Hey, Castaneda sold a LOT of copies of his stuff too

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey, Castaneda sold a LOT of copies of his stuff too

Lol

 

[poolerboy0077]

Here's something that might unsettle you. Neuroscience has long known that the self, what we perceive as a unified locus of consciousness resting behind the eyes looking out into the world, is an illusion. Read Bruce Hood's The Illusion of the Self.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's something that might unsettle you. Neuroscience has long known that the self, what we perceive as a unified locus of consciousness resting behind the eyes looking out into the world, is an illusion. Read Bruce Hood's The Illusion of the Self.

I'm not sure why that would unsettle me. I decided self only exists for a blip, if at all, before I posted this thread.

The unsettling thing is that I didn't decide to turn this into a book, apparently.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Just for reference, I'd call the book, "You down with MBC? Yea, you know me."

TillICollapse knows what I'm talkin bout.

 

[Paradoxum]

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

Well when I said consciousness I meant things like the experiences like seeing colour, hearing sound, etc. The subjective experiences you have.

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?

I don't know how to describe myself properly. I suppose physical things also have the problem of whether the are the same now as they were a second ago.

I'm probably not being much help.

Or are you just MBC?

Middle East Broadcasting Center?

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

I don't know how you test for it... consciousness is still something that no one understands. I doubt a digital toaster is conscious though.

The only reason I think other people are conscious is because I assume they are, because they are like me. A machine that can pass the Turing test is still unlikely to have the same physical make up as us, so we can't necessarily assume such a thing is conscious, rather than simply programmed to act conscious.

 

[TillICollapse]

Just for reference, I'd call the book, "You down with MBC? Yea, you know me."

TillICollapse knows what I'm talkin bout.

Aww ... man that was the JAMMMM ! For hip-hop, it was greatness. Songs like OPP started to put old school rap to sleep. Old school stuff like .... Run MBC.

;-)

 

[TillICollapse]

I don't know how you test for it... consciousness is still something that no one understands. I doubt a digital toaster is conscious though.

The only reason I think other people are conscious is because I assume they are, because they are like me. A machine that can pass the Turing test is still unlikely to have the same physical make up as us, so we can't necessarily assume such a thing is conscious, rather than simply programmed to act conscious.

Interesting ... so for the time being, you assume something needs to be more human to be conscious ? Is that fair to say ?

And I'm actually with you on the Turing test, although I don't think it has to do with physical makeup. Even if we could "grow" a fully synthetic homo sapien from start to finish, I don't know that I could say it was conscious.

So does believing in consciousness ... or the "self" I should say ... require "faith" in some fashion your opinion ?

 

[quatona]

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

Under this definition, I think the concept "self" has no referent, and even less a consistent one. It is the vain attempt to conceptualize stability, permanence in a world in which change is all there is.
We may (and apparently need to) use the term for pragmatic purposes, though.

 

[Davian]

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?

I do not know what you mean by that last sentence, but by my understanding, no "self" exists.

A "phenomenal self" is constructed by the brain as needed, temporarily.

I avoid the use of the word 'illusion' (as in the illusion of self), as it implies deception.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I do not know what you mean by that last sentence, but by my understanding, no "self" exists.

A "phenomenal self" is constructed by the brain as needed, temporarily.

I avoid the use of the word 'illusion' (as in the illusion of self), as it implies deception.

Describe a phenomenal self please.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Under this definition, I think the concept "self" has no referent, and even less a consistent one. It is the vain attempt to conceptualize stability, permanence in a world in which change is all there is.
We may (and apparently need to) use the term for pragmatic purposes, though.

And.who are you, quatona?

 

[Eudaimonist]

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.

What do you count as tangible? As I see it, what is tangible is not only the physical "stuff" out there, but also the dynamic relationships that stuff has to other stuff. Our dynamic selves are such relationships between tangible entities.

So, the self is very much tangible. It isn't something that exists in some intangible realm parallel to our universe. It is an emergent property of the tangible.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

And.who are you, quatona?

The guy who has problems answering loaded questions.

 

[durangodawood]

I dont think the way we change over time negates a self. The self is a sort of project. But in that respect it still IS.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I dont think the way we change over time negates a self. The self is a sort of project. But in that respect it still IS.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, the Buddhist narrative is stuck in the view that a "self" must be something static, eternal, and/or self-contained.


eudaimonia,

Mark