MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:52 pm
@Quinn phil,
Quinn;141092 wrote:
Can we agree that humans have a natural instinct to survive? If my dad had tried to teach me advanced math at a young age, I would have ditched him to go outside. However, I wanted to learn English subconsiously. So I can be happy, and so I could survive. I can't speak for the needs and wants of other people. However, I can speak for everyone in saying that it is possible to tune out. Whenever you want to, actually. Cover your ears. If you don't have hands to cover your ears, use something else. Scream. Tune out. Whatever.

Even if we do get our knowledge from other people, that doesn't completely determine our conclusion about what is right and wrong. We can think about it. Computers are told what to do, and they do it. They can't run away, or rebel, or think something else.

Sure it's close, but the matter of decision, (and a few other things) seperate artificial intelligence from what I call "actual intelligence".


Right, and its that need to survive which computers currently lack. I'm just trying to generate scenarios in which a non human entity could display personhood. I don't know if it ever will happen, but should it happen would those robots not be persons?

I would, however, like to ask you why you choose what is right or wrong? You must have reasons to do things, and reason is not developed individually but communally. In a world where people communicate with numbers, maybe math would be critical to survival. In which case you choosing not to learn math would be a very irrational choice.

I agree people can choose what to believe, but my point is that there are reasons behind every choice, and those reasons are usually out of our control.
0 Replies
 
pondfish
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 05:56 pm
@MMP2506,
I do not exist. But i can be what ever you want me to be. It is always observer point of view.

As an observer i do not see myself because i am free of burden of humans. Very Happy
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:00 pm
@pondfish,
pondfish;141099 wrote:
I do not exist. But i can be what ever you want me to be. It is always observer point of view.

As an observer i do not see myself because i am free of burden of humans. Very Happy


The observing point of view is not necessarily free from all human burden. As an observer, it must be observed that there exist other points of view that deserve consideration, giving way to some sort of burden.
pondfish
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:48 pm
@MMP2506,
what i am saying is observer has a belief , he only see his belief in everone and everything. that is the burden.

So who are you is a pointless question. You manifest what ever you want you to be.:bigsmile:
MMP2506
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Mar, 2010 06:55 pm
@pondfish,
pondfish;141121 wrote:
what i am saying is observer has a belief , he only see his belief in everone and everything. that is the burden.

So who are you is a pointless question. You manifest what ever you want you to be.:bigsmile:


He only sees his belief, but his beliefs are influenced by others belief, and others by his. This becomes obvious through discourse with others, we learn things that were previously unknown through discourse, so there must be something we are discoursing with.

If you don't exist, how can you manifest anything, or want to be anything?
0 Replies
 
permoda12345
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2011 10:24 am
@MMP2506,
dislike has nothing to do with growing or giving ourselves good relationships , dislike builds pyramids of block in front of our view into our selves to know exactly who we are !! one would not be able to recognize the other side of personality , humanity and one self .
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 13 Jan, 2011 10:46 pm
@Pythagorean,
Pythagorean wrote:

The self is over-rated today. To the point of hubris. The self is a criminal or an obscene evil power, according to experts on the self like Doestoevsky and Nietzsche.


the sixties and seventies ....good and bad

Quote:
According to the modern , self human nature is irrational, unintelligible or even non-existent. The self without natural teleology or divinity as a guide, is the mere expression of nihilism. If there is no 'mankind' to speak of anymore, then the individual, as individual, escapes the grasp of reason and falls into a pit.


true

Quote:
This self is an underground basement/rat-hole phenomenon breeding cynicism, neuroses and spiritual home-sickness. And if the disease weren't so widespread it would be laughable.


agreed


Quote:
Only a return to great politics, the advent of Ceasarism, a hollow-cost, environmental catastrophe, civil war, nuclear armageddon etc., could save them from the little mocking joke that has become their selves.


troubling to say the least
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 09:54 pm
@William,
Good point, William. I recall an anthropology grad student saying that the Other (the exotic peoples studied by ethnographers) is just a variation on herself. I believe she enjoyed living with others.
0 Replies
 
Miss L Toad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 10:53 pm
@MMP2506,
I'm a bit of a PIN

Personal Identity Number

I love numbers and they're so much easier to remember.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Feb, 2011 11:02 pm
I've spent a lot of time on the question in the OP. I investigated the Buddhist analytic approach, which concludes that the self exists, but not in the way it's commonly conceived of. It exists as an ongoing process, rather than as an enduring entity. The distinction is a big one, I think.

More recently, I've been looking at what neuroscience and neuropsychiatry have to say about the self, and I ran into some very, very interesting literature. It seems that researchers have located the areas (there are more than one) in the brain responsible for our sense of self, which seems to be the result of the interactions of a few different areas in conjunction with information gained through the sensory organs and their neural pathways.

This sense of self is the experience of temporal continuity, and thus, of the experience of being an singular, time-enduring entity. However useful this sense is in survival, it doesn't actually represent things they way they are. Everything about a human animal is in a constant state of flux. Everything. If it's true that all the matter and energy in the body is replaced every 7 years, and if thoughts, sensations, moods, behaviors, beliefs, memories, etc, are all fleeting, then where is this enduring entity?

Seems to be an abstract construct. A useful one, as I noted, but not really real in the way that I, at least, previously conceived of my self. Something is certainly going on, but what's going on is so different from my previous assumptions about it that they're hardly commensurate.

Interesting related readings: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/03878/sample/9780521803878ws.pdf

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran07/ramachandran07_index.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19837100

http://neuro.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/16/4/509

Some are more interesting and relevant than the others, of course, but interesting stuff. To me, anyway.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 12:34 pm
@FBM,
FBM, your description of the self as process rather than entity is well stated, but it is a statement ABOUT its nature. Try meditation (Vipassanna is a good version) to experience your self-nature from a psychologically (spiritually) beneficial perspective.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 05:39 pm
@JLNobody,
Thanks. I've done lots of vipassana and samadi meditation. I was a monk in Thailand for a year. My experience in meditation contributed to the description of the self in my previous post. I can't find anything stable or enduring about it, including the sense of self itself, which comes and goes and while it's present, must be constantly generated. A process, not an entity.

Here in Korea, and in Mahayana Buddhism in general, there's the concept of a True Self. If you study the Pali canon, you'll find that it's in direct opposition to what the Buddha taught about the nature of the self.

Anyway, what other sort of statement about something is possible, except for statements about its qualities? When you say "it is a statement ABOUT its nature", you seem to be presupposing the nature of the self as a discrete, individual, enduring entity. My post says that that presupposition arises from inaccurate, usually unexamined assumptions that arise from the brain's near-constant generation of a sense of self.

When you examine the actual contents of a human, including non-physical aspects such as habits, behavior patterns, you can't find a single thing that you can point to as your 'self'. Instead, it's a abstraction based on a mental composite of all these things. We imagine that we're singular, discrete, time-enduring entities/identities, and doing so aids survival, but it just doesn't match careful observation. Emergent properties are not independent, discrete entities in themselves. We just tend to treat them that way in discourse for linguistic convenience.

There's nothing wrong with the phenomena, by the way. The error is in how the phenomena are interpreted.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Feb, 2011 10:51 pm
@FBM,
Very good. I appreciate your recognition that despite its delusional nature the self (like our grammatical construction of experience) is essential for species survival. The True self is another matter. I like American Soto Zen's distinction here between big mind (Atman) and little mind (ego).
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 01:10 am
@FBM,
It does n´t much matter...what is singular is "your" condition, as you pointed out, your FUNCTIONAL process of relation...the "thing" in you is your action...Spiritus Anima !
0 Replies
 
jambone
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 07:58 pm
@William,
Personal identity I believe is how you think and feel realitive to your environmental and social context, its relational. The self is another matter, life is consciousness, consciousness is life." To quote the Upanishads " The self in one is the self in all." It is that which experiences. All meaning is biologically determined, thus it is the self which bestows meaning upon that environment and/or social context. Subject and object stand or fall together. In truth one cannot consider environment and individual being as two systems in interaction but of necessity, the two are one system. In addition the self has no identity, all organism are selves.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Feb, 2011 08:19 pm
Who are you?

all i really know is, i woke up in a soho doorway, a policeman knew my name, he said i could sleep at home tonight, if i could get up and walk away
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 07:29 am
@MMP2506,
Actually, personal identity has always been a problem in philosophy. Read up on Aristotle and to learn more from him about it.

For personal identity, there is the view that an individual has essential properties which are non-trivially sufficient and necessary. This is known as essentialism. There are other views as well which deal with the mind/body dichotomy and such. Why not read up on it? There is a huge literature on identity from both the continental and analytic schools.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  2  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 04:11 pm
@JLNobody,
I must confess that despite my many (35 years) years of dailey meditation my Self remains the great mystery of my life.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Mar, 2011 04:16 pm
Nihilist here. I don't even believe in me.
0 Replies
 
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2011 10:46 pm
@JLNobody,
JLNobody wrote:

Very good. I appreciate your recognition that despite its delusional nature the self (like our grammatical construction of experience) is essential for species survival.


Thanks. Human species, anyway.

Quote:
The True self is another matter. I like American Soto Zen's distinction here between big mind (Atman) and little mind (ego).


This is what confuses me about Mahayana philosophy. Their doctrine in many ways (anatta vs True Self, for one) directly contradicts what is taught in the Pali canon discourses, yet they keep the name "Buddhism". In order to legitimize the Mahayanist sutras that were composed long, long after the Buddha's death, they made up this story about secret teachings that were somehow magically preserved in the supernatural land of the nagas until...the long-dead Buddha decided that mankind was ready? I just can't buy it. Looks too much like a bait-and-switch to me. A somewhat underhanded way to justify clinging to selfhood.

I hope that didn't sound offensive, by the way. Just explaining the way I see it.

0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Who are you?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/24/2014 at 12:15:22