Where is the self? How can dualism stand if it's just a fiction?

I came across an interesting definition of self written by the novelist, A. S. Byatt:
“A man is the history of his breaths and thoughts, acts, atoms and wounds, love indifference and dislike, also of his race and nation, the soil that fed him and his forbears, the stones and sands of his familiar places, long-silenced battles and struggles of conscience, of the smiles of girls and the slow utterance of old women, of accidents and the gradual action of inexorable law, of all this and something else, too, a single flame which in every way obeys the laws that pertain to Fire itself, and yet is lit and put out from one moment to the next, and can never be relumed in the whole waste of time to come.”

igm wrote:

Berty McJock wrote:

so how can the Self exist if it's not self aware?
the oxymoron creates a paradox.

Well spotted... that is a relevant question, I'd say! Are you asking Matt? Is it referring to Matt’s recent post?

If it is in relation (to my proposed model),

Self (capital S) does require self-reference.
I don't know what you are meaning by "self-aware".
If you mean awareness of the system by the system, in the sense that the system has a representation of itself;
Then yes a system is "self-aware" (if it is a conscious one).

If you mean that the system has a representation of itself that would be 100% accurate as observed from outside the system;
Then no. The system is not "self-aware" (regardless of if it is conscious or not).
[This is a consequence of the modeling problem. A 100% accurate representation of a system requires a system larger than the one represented. To know the Self (capital S) 100% accurately you must be a system larger than yourself]

igm wrote:

MattDavis wrote:

I make the ASSUMPTION that consciousness requires self-reference.

I'm still reflecting... but do you believe this 'might' be the weakness in your argument?

Perhaps,
but I think that the assumption is justified in what we observe of systems that we label with the term "conscious".
Would you feel comfortable labeling someone as being conscious if they were unable to think about that 'someone'.
My assumption is in what we are choosing to call 'conscious behaviors'.
For my model I made the assumption that at minimum they must be self-referential, in accordance to how most people would use the term "conscious".

Well said. A good synopsis.

Note that the problem of "the observation of observation" lies at the core of scepticism about the nature of "transcendence to selflessness". This issue has been formally explored by systems theorists such as Von Foerster who have indicated that nested systems can involve either an open or closed hierarchy of ascending levels. The closure option tends to be evoked by theists...e.g...
http://thehope.tripod.com/Bernard_Scott/Observer.html

igm wrote:

Can you put together something which shows that the existence of a 'truly existent self' is untenable based on our agreed list of characteristics that a truly existent self would need to be such a thing?

I can try.....


Model of Self that Meets the Discussed Criteria
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I make the ASSUMPTION that consciousness requires self-reference.

Consciousness is a manifestation of certain types of interactions within a complex but structured system. Certain complex structured system (like brains) exhibit behaviors that can be labeled as being conscious behaviors. One of the requirements of such systems is an ability to "represent the system within the system". Systems can be conscious, but they do do not have consciousness as in the sense that, consciousness exists somewhere (some physical place).
Consciousness should be treated semantically as we would treat other classifications of behaviors in systems. If a system exhibits cyclical behavior, you will not get a meaningful response by asking "where is the cyclicalness in the system?" The cyclical is a characteristic of the behavior of a system.
Because consciousness is simply the characteristic of something, it follows that it has no defined physical location. To suggest that it does have a physical location would be like asking where is the roundness in a circle.

Non-physicality of Self:
Self (with a capital S) is the label that occurs in conscious behaviors of systems and is used to point references back to the system.
It is the representation of the system, by the system.
It is the tool needed for 'self-reference.'
Self (capital S) is also not properly treated as a 'thing' (having physical location). It is a label that exists only as encoded in the consciousness behavior of the system.
From this view all concepts should not be treated as 'physical things' because concepts are labels encoded within a behavior.

Autonomous-ness of Self:
Autonomous simply means self-directed.
The behaviors of a system originate from within that system.
The cylical behavior of a solar system originates from within the solar system.
Systems that exhibit conscious behavior have a 'self' label and the representation that creates is Self (capital S) within the system, so it should interpret its own system behaviors as autonomous (that is, as Self directed behavior).

Continuous-ness of Self:
The label encoded within the conscious behaviors of a system should remain relatively unchanged, or if it does change, it must change in small enough increments so as that it can still be recognized for what it refers to by the system. (Since this was presupposed as a criteria of conscious behavior.)
Regardless of whether a label does or does not change, since conscious behavior ALWAYS requires self-reference the label must always be able to be correctly interpreted within the system. For as long as the system is exhibiting conscious behaviors, there must persist a representation within the system that is Self (capital S).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that this basically includes the discussed features, while staying inside the material world
and outside of metaphysics.

Frank, apart from this part of your quote, which doesn't follow, from my assertion, I do believe you're finally seeing what my asserted position of 'open-mindedness' really is.

Do you believe there is a 'Frank' that has 'some' autonomy over his body and actions and where are you located in your body/mind? Also, that you are singular (there's only one Frank Aspisa i.e. the one who's posting on A2k) and you continue over time in this life from birth to death?

Note that the problem of "the observation of observation" lies at the core of scepticism about the nature of "transcendence to selflessness". This issue has been formally explored by systems theorists such as Von Foerster who have indicated that nested systems can involve either an open or closed hierarchy of ascending levels. The closure option tends to be evoked by theists...e.g...
http://thehope.tripod.com/Bernard_Scott/Observer.html

This issue has been formally explored by systems theorists such as Von Foerster who have indicated that nested systems can involve either an open or closed hierarchy of ascending levels.

Fortunately, the circularity is not vicious, as in the statement "I am a liar". Rather, it is virtuous or, as von Foerster calls it, it is a creative circle, which allows us to "transcend into another domain".

Note that the problem of "the observation of observation" lies at the core of scepticism about the nature of "transcendence to selflessness".

this is where i think aware is a better word...it's aware of itself, without the need to refer to anything.

I don't have enough information or evidence to decide this of dolphins or pigs.

The system does not have to be always utilizing a self-referential label. (actively thinking, thoughts that use it).
However, the label must persistently exist within the system (be accessible when thoughts that require such a label manifest).

awareness is a very different thing than breathing. in my opinion anyway. I see breathing as something like plants do toward the light. A conditioned response, that can probably be explained by some kind of biochemical process. awareness, or thinking is a very different phenomena.

Thinking with a self-referential label is not the same as thinking about a self-referential label. It is also not the same as thinking about how it is that you have a self-referential label.