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

@Lola,

Thanks again Lola for the summary which is very accurate (by my opinion) Very Happy

Lola wrote:

If a self is feeling selfless, that self exists. If a person is feeling anything, the self exists.

This reminds me of something that might be of interest especially to one in the psychological field.
By the model of self I laid out there is nothing really said about the accuracy of the Self representation.
Self must always mean "I", but it could very well be mistaken about where that "I" is. The system could very well still operate and not think of itself as having a body. A self could think of itself as disembodied. Or self-identify with everything.
This of course does not make it disembodied, or make it everything (by my model).
The "where am I" answer has to be gathered from outside influences (senses).
The old adage about the eyes being the windows to the soul. We tend to feel our "I"-ness to be not that far behind them.
I don't know if those born without sight if their feeling of "I"-ness is in the same place. I wonder if this is a trait of our visual dominance?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
A 'self' would need 'characteristics' so the Buddha is skeptical because he can't find any, anywhere.

I'm afraid I didn't make myself clear. I realize that the Buddha was skeptical about the existence of the self. That's what you said in your initial post. But to be a total skeptic about the existence of the self, he would also have to be skeptical about the non-existence of the self. That, I'm confident, still hasn't been established.

He is able to be confident that up to know no 'truly existent self' has been established to exist. When he rests in the state that is free from that belief he suffers less and is happier and more content. For those who also want this experience then he has explained how he was able to do it... they can do the same as he did if they wish.

He doesn't attempt to be skeptical about the non-existence of the self. His realization doesn't require that... just confidence that no truly existent self has up to know been found. The self appears to be a figment of the imagination of the mind.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

He doesn't attempt to be skeptical about the non-existence of the self.

As I suspected. The Buddha wasn't a total skeptic, he was just a sloppy logician.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

The body supplies the energy. When the body stops supplying that power source, how can the mind continue?

The body depends on energy e.g. food for it's energy.. the food requires energy from the sun... etc... etc.. it's all interconnected. Therefore you can't isolate the body and say it supplies power to the mind; it is all interconnected. Mind may be a characteristic of reality just as mass and energy are i.e. mind may be an aspect of energy.

The way to deal with this is to say show me that the mind 'depends' for its existence on the body and I'll believe that when the body decomposes then the mind can no longer function... until then I'll have an 'open mind' about mind/body.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

What if you're describing could be a delusion, or what you believe it APPEARS to be the case. I refrain from using illusion, because illusions are tricks of perception of the mind, whereas, delusions are based on beliefs. This is important because many of the things that humans think they 'know' or that humans believe are 'truth' are based on belief and not some sort of perceptual disturbance involving the brain.
You are taking discrete "units" of experiences and ideas and putting them together to conjure an idea of what self is, but what if examining these units itself requires a notion of personality, i.e. exclusive aggregation, cohesiveness in time, and so on?

Once abandoned the notion of a soul, how is "self" and "identity" related and different in your view?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
He doesn't attempt to be skeptical about the non-existence of the self.

As I suspected. The Buddha wasn't a total skeptic, he was just a sloppy logician.

Joe, you seem to be sure of your statement but of course the alternative is he could have known... when to stop.

1 Reply

@Looking4Truth,

Quote:

Yeah I know, you think I'm crazy Wink .

Not at all. Considering the same things and coming to different conclusions is hardly what I'd call crazy. Believe me, I can recognize crazy, you're not it, as least as far as I know from here.

How does history exist without a mind to perceive it?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Therefore you can't isolate the body and say it supplies power to the mind; it is all interconnected.

Well, by my statement that's exactly what I did. Assume the mind exists in the chemical reactions in the brain. What you're saying is that it exists outside that. Isn't that the main issue we are discussing here? Where does the mind or self exist and that determines whether or not it continues? By my observation I'm not saying I absolutely know what I said to be true. I understand the whole precept of reincarnation or heaven depends upon it not being true. So is the self the 'thing' that perceives the result of the stimuli of our various senses? Is our body just a vehicle? How would I know I can exist without my body until I get out of it? And at that point I would lose my connection to those senses. And how would you know that it still exists in the reality we live in now?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRF, that's why I concluded with this, it's my 'real' point:

igm wrote:

IRFRANK wrote:

The body supplies the energy. When the body stops supplying that power source, how can the mind continue?

The way to deal with this is to say show me that the mind 'depends' for its existence on the body and I'll believe that when the body decomposes then the mind can no longer function... until then I'll have an 'open mind' about mind/body.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Joe, you seem to be sure of your statement but of course the alternative is he could have known... when to stop.

When to stop what?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

igm wrote:
The burden of proof is with anyone who says there is a truly existing self.

Why?

Because that's the way the interwebs work. Somebody at some time must have won an argument by claiming that everybody else had the burden of proving him wrong. Since then, burden-shifting has become the fall-back position for every bad argument. "You don't agree that Jewish shape-shifting sasquatch aliens from the Crab Nebula caused the world trade towers to collapse? Prove that they didn't!" In the law, the burden of proof is on the party that needs to prove some element of his/her case in order to prevail. On the internet, the burden of proof is on anybody who has a better argument.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
Joe, you seem to be sure of your statement but of course the alternative is he could have known... when to stop.

When to stop what?

The Buddha wasn't trying to be a 'logician' he was trying to alleviate suffering and promote happiness... letting go of the notion of a self is 'enough'; there is no need to go on and on from there. He uses logic and reason to take him as far as his reason for using it requires.

How else are we going to find 'some' peace in our lives. Questions are endless, answers are temporary and unsatisfactory in the end... apart from the ones that help with practical day to day living and getting along with folks!

3 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

The Buddha wasn't trying to be a 'logician' he was trying to alleviate suffering and promote happiness... letting go of the notion of a self is 'enough'; there is no need to go on and on from there. He uses logic and reason to take him as far as his reason for using it requires.

Then why didn't you stop there?

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

The minds that perceived history in ancient times are gone. All we have left are a few of the distorted stories. The memories died after the experiences were created. We live in "real time" with our mind perceiving an ever changing moment. The experiences are covered (hidden) by our perception of the "real time" which means our mind keeps us from the hidden truth. In reality, it's impossible to be in two places at one time. All things must come to past and the mind must die before we can be infinite. Eternity is in one place at one time (a timeless state of being). Reality is being in many places at many times (an ever changing state of beIng). Infinity will be in infinite places at one time (a timeless infinite state of being). We are going back to where we came from (eternity) and we are taking the "self" with us to be shared, changed, and explored.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

igm wrote:
The Buddha wasn't trying to be a 'logician' he was trying to alleviate suffering and promote happiness... letting go of the notion of a self is 'enough'; there is no need to go on and on from there. He uses logic and reason to take him as far as his reason for using it requires.

Then why didn't you stop there?

Joe, why didn't you show me why there 'is' a truly existent self?

Also, people who may know very little about Buddhism 'may' get a clearer picture of 'at least' what it isn't.

1 Reply

@IRFRANK,

IRFRANK wrote:

Holes in Swiss cheese are just gas. Right? I understand what you are saying, but there is a physical reason for them.

There's a physical reason for the existence of the ego, too. Remove that reason (it's called "the forebrain"), and you turn the attached human into an egoless vegetable.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I believe that our egos are something real, based on at least three pieces of evidence:

my own experience of having an ego,

eyewitness accounts (or should that be brainwitness accounts?) of others consistent with my own experience, and

that the alternative notion, that our egos are delusions, leads to internal contradictions. (If the self is a delusion, who if not the self is deluded here?)

Thomas, thanks for post and your list. I'll take a look at it and get back to you.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

The Buddha wasn't trying to be a 'logician' he was trying to alleviate suffering and promote happiness... letting go of the notion of a self is 'enough'; there is no need to go on and on from there. He uses logic and reason to take him as far as his reason for using it requires.

How else are we going to find 'some' peace in our lives. Questions are endless, answers are temporary and unsatisfactory in the end... apart from the ones that help with practical day to day living and getting along with folks!

I do not understand this argument at all.

Why are you supposing "letting go of self" is the key to happiness...or that "not letting go of self" is promoting suffering?

Really, igm, it doesn't seem to follow at all...and your claims that those things are "logically" derived seem gratuitous.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas this is my second reply to your single post. Please see my first reply above.

igm wrote:

Thomas wrote:

I believe that our egos are something real, based on at least three pieces of evidence:

my own experience of having an ego,

eyewitness accounts (or should that be brainwitness accounts?) of others consistent with my own experience, and

that the alternative notion, that our egos are delusions, leads to internal contradictions. (If the self is a delusion, who if not the self is deluded here?)

Thomas, thanks for post and your list. I'll take a look at it and get back to you.

Reply:

Point one: how can I know 'your' experience, it's yours not mine?

Point two: how can you know the experience of 'others' if 'others' can't know 'your' experience?

Point three: must the 'alternative' be that the self is a delusion and why? The self could be a 'fiction' created to allow language and/or thought to function but doesn't have any true independent existence.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do not understand this argument at all.

Frank, check the 'whole' of our posts i.e. between Joe and myself and then post based on that. Your post seems to be missing our past posts' information. You 'may' be commenting on only 'part' of our past posts.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know