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

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Sure.
Do you think it is more true that debate is an intellectual combat, or that debate is a method of discourse used to by both parties to explore ideas?

I think that debate is a method of discourse used by both parties to explore ideas. Unfortunately, on the Internet, debate often deteriorates into combat...and I am not even sure it is "intellectual" combat.

I try to stay away from that as much as possible.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank wrote:

I try to stay away from that as much as possible.

I'm pleased to hear that.

My opinion is that when esoteric subjects like the nature of self, or free will, or consciousness are discussed both parties must agree, in that both parties will have a "theory of knowledge" that they will each use in discussing the subject. Those "theories of knowledge" do not have to be the same theories, but they must both agree to each have a theory that they each will use as a "jumping off point".

I know you said:

Quote:

I do not have a "theory of knowledge."

, but I suggest that you actually might, and I think it looks something like this:
There is no event or concept that can be established as absolutely true.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My answer avoids the use of the words "know" and "guess" which you delight in wittering about as an alternative to doing some thinking. I challenge you to get your head round this usage of "know" from Brian Cox's recent book explaining quantum theory (in which, BTW ,he states he is opposed to any "mysterious" interpretation).

Quote:

" According to Pauli's exclusion principle every electron in the universe knows which quantum state every other electron is in."

...and how do we "know" this ?...because it is an essential element in the understanding of the theory which underpins the design of the semi-conductors in your computer.
So get thinking instead of wittering Frank ! This is a functionally established piece of "scientific knowledge" which has holism at its core, and as many have pointed out, is in agreement with general holistic "insights" found in Buddhism (and similar non-dualistic movements).

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I have not read every word of the previous 16 pages of this discussion. But I have read most of them. Very interesting discussion so far. This is the way I understand it; offered at this late stage of the game.

The human self exists in the human brain. The brain is an organ in the human body. It functions in a complicated way but let's just say for now that it is powered by chemical reactions. We experience this activity as thoughts and feelings about ourselves and others.

It is not physically possible, if a brain is alive, to have no thoughts or feelings. Selflessness is a concept, a feeling, a belief, but it is functionally not possible. If a self is feeling selfless, that self exists. If a person is feeling anything, the self exists. A state of non-self = dead, or at least brain dead.

I'm not a religious person. I've never (so far) found a religion I could believe. But I can understand, I think another person's desire to believe.

4 Replies

@Lola,

Thanks Lola! Very Happy

I am not sure if you mean for your post to be an expression of your views,
or for it to be a summary of what you have gathered from the discussion so far?

Either way there is a lot of content to your post. Very Happy

So can I offer you a clarification of what I think regarding any of the things you bring up,
or would you like my opinion as to whether what you have written is an accurate summary of the discussion so far?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Do as you will. I'm all eyes. Actually, my original post was going to be in reference of one of your posts. But I finally decided to go the minimalist route and just say it as succintly as possible. I packed it all in. Your fluency is impressive and I can only agree so far.

2 Replies

@Lola,

http://able2know.org/topic/208391-1

0 Replies

@Lola,

Lola wrote:

Do as you will. I'm all eyes.

Thanks Lola!
I will certainly get back to you and take you up on that. Very Happy

Today I have to get back to obligations outside of "esoteric" discussions, like spending some time with my family and friends.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253934)
Frank wrote:
I try to stay away from that as much as possible.

I'm pleased to hear that.

We both are.

Quote:

My opinion is that when esoteric subjects like the nature of self, or free will, or consciousness are discussed both parties must agree, in that both parties will have a "theory of knowledge" that they will each use in discussing the subject. Those "theories of knowledge" do not have to be the same theories, but they must both agree to each have a theory that they each will use as a "jumping off point".

I worry about that, Matt. I hear the lyric "my theory of knowledge" often and from many different people, but when I listen to the music, I always seem to hear a tune that sounds more like, "this is how things are...and anyone who thinks otherwise simply cannot see what I can see."

Most people with whom I discuss these things, Matt, are already convinced that the "know" things they almost certainly do not know...and then try to manipulate the meaning of the word "know" to fit where they want to end up. Frankly, I think that their use of the words "knowledge" and "know" are grossly misapplied.

Said another way (using your words):

My opinion is that when esoteric subjects like the nature of self, or free will, or consciousness (components of REALITY) are discussed, both parties must be willing to acknowledge that any "theories" of those components are little more than blind guesses about the REALITY...and that playing semantic games with what we mean by "knowledge" is only a function of trying to rationalize guesswork trying to be passed off as "knowledge."

The parties can discuss all they like...from as many angles as each wants, but they have to agree that issues like REALITY and such may be beyond the reach of whatever they want to use as a substitute for the word "knowledge"...and that any real "knowledge" of things like that can only be obtained by perverting what we really mean when we use the word "knowledge."

That may seem besides the point of where you seem headed with your thrust here, but we can see where that goes as we move along.

Let me start from my side by answering the question you asked (after a very easy question from me)...and you can guide the direction of the conversation from that point on.

My question is: Were you the person who posted a video discussing knowledge that I mentioned I watched in its entirety?

Okay...now to your question:

Quote:

I know you said:

Quote:
Quote:
I do not have a "theory of knowledge."

, but I suggest that you actually might, and I think it looks something like this:
There is no event or concept that can be established as absolutely true.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

Part is correct...and part wrong...and part may or may not be wrong.

I certainly said that I do not have a "theory of knowledge."

If you saying that actually I have one and it is: "There is no event or concept that can be established as absolutely true"...you are incorrect.

I do not agree with that statement...so it cannot be a "theory of knowledge" that I hold.

The "iffy" part is that although I suggest that I do not have a theory of knowledge, I may have and it may be hidden from me for the moment. I am willing to search for it with you, if you choose.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5253780)
My answer avoids the use of the words "know" and "guess" which you delight in wittering about as an alternative to doing some thinking. I challenge you to get your head round this usage of "know" from Brian Cox's recent book explaining quantum theory (in which, BTW ,he states he is opposed to any "mysterious" interpretation).
Quote:
" According to Pauli's exclusion principle every electron in the universe knows which quantum state every other electron is in."

...and how do we "know" this ?...because it is an essential element in the understanding of the theory which underpins the design of the semi-conductors in your computer.
So get thinking instead of wittering Frank ! This is a functionally established piece of "scientific knowledge" which has holism at its core, and as many have pointed out, is in agreement with general holistic "insights" found in Buddhism (and similar non-dualistic movements).

Does that mean you are a fish...or that you are not.

Obviously, if you are a fish, I will have to give your considerations about what fish can and cannot sense more thought. But since I think you are not...I choose to consider them guesses.

So...am I correct that you are not a fish...or am I wrong?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank I'm impressed by your determination, scholarship, loquacity. Often in the middle of a thread given my reaction requiring lengthy treatment--as you might have noted from time to time--I reply with the use of a new thread

Many times it's especially warranted when OT owing to digression. Hope you might find my observation of value

A2k I dearly love you and yours but still folks ask me why I spend so much time at an obscure website arguing with a bunch of complete strangers of anonymous identity situated in far-off places

1 Reply

@Lola,

Quote:

The human self exists in the human brain.

Wrong. Read Gilbert Ryle "The Concept of Mind" or Varela "Embodied Cognition". Brains may be necessary for selves but not sufficient.

Quote:

It is not physically possible, if a brain is alive, to have no thoughts or feelings.

Wrong. Most of the sleeping state is "thoughtless", and that "self" in the dreaming state is usually unrecognizable.

Quote:

If a self is feeling selfless, that self exists.

True, but it is not the "self" which feels "selfless", it reports, as best it can on an experience of a "dissipated self", as it might attempt to report on the contents of a dream. In neither case is the "normal self" the experiencer, and in the non-self case there is a quality of "reality" very different to the scenario of dreams.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Are dreams part of our life's experience? If so, how?

1 Reply

@Lola,

Lolaessense wrote:

The human self exists in the human brain. The brain is an organ in the human body. It functions in a complicated way but let's just say for now that it is powered by chemical reactions. We experience this activity as thoughts and feelings about ourselves and others.

It is not physically possible, if a brain is alive, to have no thoughts or feelings. Selflessness is a concept, a feeling, a belief, but it is functionally not possible. If a self is feeling selfless, that self exists. If a person is feeling anything, the self exists. A state of non-self = dead, or at least brain dead.

You're making some grand assumption here. Is there a discrepancy between experience of actions made according to a person's will (as an autonomous cause of action) and what actions made according to a person's will really is, namely? One could say that actions made according to a person's will exists only in the sense that we can have an experience of voluntary (specifically of our decisions causing actions) and that this experience is just entirely epiphenomenal, can one not? One can go further and suggest that willing does not cause action, which is in reality the effect of basic psycho-physiological facts about us, which also cause us to have the experience of "voluntary." Until there are more research and findings in neuroscience confirms or denies this, it's inaccurate to make the assumptions you've made and wield it as if it is factual piece, especially the bit about "selflessness is a concept, a feeling, a belief, but it is functionally not possible."

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Big concept that... "our life's experience" ! Each of those three words might require analysis.

Clearly the usual "we" has knowledge of at least two distinct qualitative states called "awake" and "asleep" in which the second is not normally considered to belong to "real life".

On the other hand, an esoteric "we" might claim knowledge of more than two states and relegate that which is normally called "wakefulness" to a lesser status in terms of "reality". (Gurdjieff and maybe even Buddhists)

And a third view might even deflate the concept of "experience" to an aspect of "cognitive restructuring" which is non-anthropocentric (hence "we" =all life), and cognition is defined as the "general life process". (Maturana). From this viewpoint "dreams" occur when cognitive structures operate without coupling to their environments.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Lolaessense (Post 5253989)
Quote:
The human self exists in the human brain.

Wrong. Read Gilbert Ryle "The Concept of Mind" or Varela "Embodied Cognition". Brains may be necessary for selves but not sufficient.

Damn, Lola...don't you understand that if Fresco quotes someone saying something...that something has to be revealed truth that cannot be contested? What is wrong with you?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
It is not physically possible, if a brain is alive, to have no thoughts or feelings.

Wrong. Most of the sleeping state is "thoughtless", and that "self" in the dreaming state is usually unrecognizable.

Once again, Lola...you dare to question something Fresco says? Are you mad?

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
If a self is feeling selfless, that self exists.

True, but it is not the "self" which feels "selfless", it reports, as best it can on an experience of a "dissipated self", as it might attempt to report on the contents of a dream. In neither case is the "normal self" the experiencer, and in the non-self case there is a quality of "reality" very different to the scenario of dreams.

Well, Lola...by now I guess you get the idea. If you are not willing to drink the snake oil, why are you asking for it to be sold to you?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Tut, tut, Frank ! Stop diverting attention away from your failure to answer my challenge. We already know about your indolence in reading up on the key texts, so why wallow in it ?

1 Reply

@Falco,

Oh Falco, We've been here before and I'm not going to go there again. But I will say that I'm eager to see what neuroscience research will bring us. We have a lot to learn. But I doubt very seriously that this research will bring us proof of life after death. If it does, oh goody. I'll be so pleased.

And it is very tiresome to point out that I prefaced what I wrote by saying that what I wrote was the way I see it; clearly meaning that it's from my perspective. Blah blah blah.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I've said what I had to say. I understand that not everyone agrees with it. However, if we were to continue this discussion, we'd have to define terms and that might take weeks, if it ever got done. I suspect we're using terms with very different meanings. I don't want to disrupt this so far respectful enough discussion.

1 Reply

@Lola,

Life after death? Wherever did you arrive at such an notion from what I wrote?
My post was directed towards the question of freedom from anatomy, and a warning to not jump to any conclusions too quickly from the banter between the two opposing sides. Sometimes, when there is a lack of evidence, it isn't in anyway dishonorable to admit that there is a lack of evidence to come to a valid conclusion.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know