Support NeoGAF

[Days like these...]

Why Your Ego Is an Illusion

The Buddhist take on the self.

www.psychologytoday.com

I came across an interesting article ask this. At first I had a knee jerk reaction and daid "Of course it does!" but according to certain eastern philosophies namely Buddhism it does not, at least not in the way we think it does.

"The self, or “not-self” (anatta), is composed of five elements (skandhas), namely, body, sensation, perception, will, and consciousness. The five skandhas are in a constant state of flux but together create for the not-self the illusion of integrity and continuity, that is, the illusion of the self.


This explains why, when I try to become aware of myself, I can only ever become aware of such and such perception, such and such sensation, or such and such thought, but never of any actual core self."

So I'm in the no it doesn't camp now.

 

[feynoob]

Yes. You are a live in an empty space with aliens around you. Only difference is that you are ant who is only alive for 1 day of space time.

 

[badblue]

What part of a chair makes a chair a chair?

What exactly makes up the "self"?

One's self is a collection of the experience they have had.

 

[Winter John]

Them people lived in caves and huts. Who gives a fuck what they thought. They didn't even have IPads.

 

[Days like these...]

What part of a chair makes a chair a chair?

What exactly makes up the "self"?

One's self is a collection of the experience they have had.

That doesn't explain why you can't perceive your "self" only thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Here’s an article for you OP. I’m planning on picking up this book soon.

What Counts as Consciousness

Neuroscientist Christof Koch on human minds, AI, and bacteria.

nautil.us

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

I went through this phase in college, ha. Obsessed with no-self conceptions.

In any case: there is no "person" or self when looking at it strictly by the material world. By that measurement, any notions of some kind of center that holds across all the impulses of a brain is nonsense, has no physical basis whatsoever. So if you are committed to strict materialism, you are committed to the idea that even your loved ones never had a kind of core to them, just a series of states and changes over time which in some superficial layer of language etc use selfhood as a construct, but an empty one pointing to nothingness.

However, I'm not a reductionist in that way, and obviously we know from our loved ones that their wholeness (even when it's under attack; eg a family member with addiction, etc) is more real than anything physical, and is something that is given wholeness by a kind of mutual love/faith which is also what upholds our theological sense of reality.

 

[Days like these...]

You are committed to the idea that even your loved ones never had a kind of core to them, just a series of states and changes over time which in some superficial layer of language etc use selfhood as a construct, but an empty one pointing to nothingness.

Yes and those states are body, sensation, perception, will and consciousness. When you are asleep you stop existing to yourself. Consciousness is the only thing that exists. The "you" can still love obviously, everyone has felt that sensation.

 

[ClanOfNone]

Cogito, ergo sum.



Now is “the self” simply a collection of chemical and electrical impulses that bounce around in our brains, or is it tied to some metaphysical “soul” of some sort.

eh, it’s all a simulation anyways

 

[badblue]

That doesn't explain why you can't perceive your "self" only thoughts, sensations, perceptions, etc

The bunch of electrically charged fatty cholesterol inside of your skull is your "self".
You are piloting a wet suit of meat and bone and sinew.

Your consciousness is another part of your "self" that that is made up of the experience you have survived (and ruminate on in the shower).

To be more philosophical:

When does a pile of sticks become a chair?
You are a chair that thinks it's a pile of sticks not a chair.

 

[Rentahamster]

*looks in mirror*

*flexes*

"Yes"

 

[German Hops]

The "you" can still lunch obviously, everyone has felt that sensation.

Agreed.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

*looks in mirror*

*flexes*

"Yes"

 

[Sophist]

This is one of the main topics of the video game Soma, you should play it.

 

[ahtlas7]

Seems to me that self exist too much. Most people only see self and that is their life focus. The inability to see self is akin to the saying: can’t see the forest for the trees. Lost so deep into self that nothing exists outside our own personal reductive experience. To understand we exist beyond the self is part of conscious awakening.

 

[MHubert]

Take a stroll down the k-hole and see. Just because something is fleeting doesn't make it Unreal.

 

[Melon Husk]

"The self, or “not-self” (anatta), is composed of five elements (skandhas), namely, body, sensation, perception, will, and consciousness. The five skandhas are in a constant state of flux but together create for the not-self the illusion of integrity and continuity, that is, the illusion of the self.

Wow, never heard that one before. The sciencey way of saying it would be that there is no future or past, only "now" exists and your brain is constantly integrating 1-2 seconds worth of sensory information. Body, sensation and perception are all the same thing to me but "will" and "consciousness" are harder to define.

Consciousness and the "self" are really fun unanswered questions. To me it's quite clear that language and mirror neurons separates us from other animals. Language allows us to create narratives about ourselves and build the self, and mirror neurons allow us to create the theory of mind and construct our self by reflecting how others see us.

My fun idea is that mirror neurons create an infinite hall of mirrors effect in the brain which is partly how our "self" is formed. We create a sense of self not through our physical senses of seeing and hearing, but through the superstructures of language and social networks endlessly reflecting against each other.
.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

I guess it depends on what you mean by exist, man. Like yeah, the self is just a concept we use to understand our experience of reality, but that's good enough for me to say it exists in our minds. It's just kind if a question of semantics. Like, does math exist? Not physically, but we can still use it as a tool to understand physical reality, same with the self.

 

[Trilobit]

Yes it does exist. But getting mental disorders like depersonalization or anhedonia can make the feeling and experience of it nebulous.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeah, the concept of the self is the foundation of all human rights and morality.

If you're just a bag of sloshing chemicals and electrical impulses, nothing is lost when they toss ya into the furnace. Eastern philosophy gave us caste systems, emperors of Heaven, and the notion that the suffering of peasants was simply their lot in life, nothing to be worried about because suffering and pleasure were equally meaningless. It's not a philosophy worth following.

The Greeks despised the sophists for very good reason.

 

[AJUMP23]

If you were not aware of yourself would you be able to have a conversation about ones self.

 

[Days like these...]

If you were not aware of yourself would you be able to have a conversation about ones self.

I've linked the article. So you can better understand the concept

 

[Days like these...]

Here’s an article for you OP. I’m planning on picking up this book soon.

What Counts as Consciousness

Neuroscientist Christof Koch on human minds, AI, and bacteria.

nautil.us

Thanks, I'll be picking up that book too.

 

[Hudo]

You are all NPCs.

 

[Days like these...]

Yeah, the concept of the self is the foundation of all human rights and morality.

If you're just a bag of sloshing chemicals and electrical impulses, nothing is lost when they toss ya into the furnace. Eastern philosophy gave us caste systems, emperors of Heaven, and the notion that the suffering of peasants was simply their lot in life, nothing to be worried about because suffering and pleasure were equally meaningless. It's not a philosophy worth following.

The Greeks despised the sophists for very good reason.

I'm not going to ruin this thread with religion but western religions aren't any better. Crusades? Holy wars?

Sophists? Lol.

 

[clarky]

No.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I'm not going to ruin this thread with religion but western religions aren't any better. Crusades? Holy wars?

Sophists? Lol.

On the whole, Crusades were a really good idea, unless you think militant Islam should've swept over even more of the face of Europe.

If sophistry/solipsism doesn't ring any bells, then you're out of your depth on this topic.

But I mean, it's cool that you found Babby's First Upanishads and decided to tell the rest of us.

 

[Days like these...]

On the whole, Crusades were a really good idea, unless you think militant Islam should've swept over even more of the face of Europe.

If sophistry/solipsism doesn't ring any bells, then you're out of your depth on this topic.

But I mean, it's cool that you found Babby's First Upanishads and decided to tell the rest of us.

Yeah, no problem. Shout out for the gratuitous dig. My issue is with calling Buddhism sophistry.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeah, no problem. Shout out for the gratuitous dig. My issue is with calling Buddhism sophistry.

Why isn't it sophism? Why isn't it solipsism?

Sophist - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Solipsism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If there's no self, there's no point of communication. Act out your beliefs, if you actually believe it, and exit society. Buddhists have been doing exactly that for centuries.

Or you can bicker on a videogame forum just like the sophists bickered in the Greek forums.

 

[Days like these...]

If there's no self, there's no point of communication. Act out your beliefs, if you actually believe it, and exit society.

Are you even reading what you're writing? There's no need communicate because the self doesn't exist? I should exit society? Lol. I was banned for jokingly saying I would do that if I were drowning in debt. I'm not bickering. I asked a question. Lol fuck the Greeks just like they did boys. You seem upset.

 

[Ammogeddon]

I got into all this kind of stuff a few months back resulting in me renouncing the religion I was born into but never really connected with. Have a read up on Advaita Vedanta if you’re interested in this kind of thing, or don’t if you’re just stoned.

 

[FunkMiller]

Is this about wanking?

This is about wanking, isn't it?

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

The self is illusionary.

Spoiler

 

[Days like these...]

Is this about wanking?

This is about wanking, isn't it?

Wanking exists and doesn't exist at the same time. If you're not wanking it doesn't exist unless your watching someone wank (No judgment here just saying).

 

[ForAcademicPurposes]

Spoiler

 

[Toons]

I think, therfore I am.

 

[LordOfChaos]

Just mine does, the rest of you are illusions in this teaching/test of my soul

 

[Mossybrew]

Just mine does, the rest of you are illusions in this teaching/test of my soul

Spoken like a true buffoon, an absolute dunce, complete clown.

(Not an individual speaking to you - simply the Universe teaching you to turn the other cheek on petty insults)

 

[LordOfChaos]

Spoken like a true buffoon, an absolute dunce, complete clown.

(Not an individual speaking to you - simply the Universe teaching you to turn the other cheek on petty insults)

Haha, it thinks it has opinions

 

[ResurrectedContrarian]

As I guess I was trying to hint before... this solipsistic approach to the problem ("is my self real? I'll start here, then decide if other selves are real and therefore whether morality etc applies") is inverted, and an extremely unusual approach. It belongs to the worst strains of western modern philosophy, starting with the absolute buffoonery that is Descartes.

It's much more natural (and more ethical, I dare say) to approach this in the other direction. When you look at your own loved ones (parents, siblings, even your children if you've reached that point -- and believe me, solipsists with kids don't exist, the nonsense of that thinking disintegrates as a parent, as do most materialist tenets), you know that their faces staring back at you are real, that there is a core to value and love in them, and that the gift of this personhood is something permanent. It's more phenomenologically present and axiomatic than any of Descartes's artificial starting points about his own interior existence.

And given that these others are so undeniably real when they gaze back at you -- and that it's not simply inadvisable or illogical, but outright evil to do violence back to those persons in your life, evil on a transcendent level -- then you know reflectively that you are the same gift to them, and that you are likewise transcendently real and exist as an object of moral importance beyond anything physical.

 

[NecrosaroIII]

You are not one thing. You are a collection of millions of pieces held together by energy. So I guess in that regard "self" is not real.

I'm not sure what consciousness is, but I'm not entirely sure it's one thing either. Probably some interaction between biological material, various chemicals and energy.

 

[synchronicity]

The self exists...as a thought. The problem with thoughts, concepts and ideas is that they are all false.

For example, when starving, thinking of food, speaking of food, looking at a picture of food, will not prevent starvation. Imagining a thing via abstraction -- the only tool available to the mind...via language and images...via symbols -- is only a pointer to something. The thought can never *be* reality itself, even if thoughts sometimes take shape within or reflect reality. When the thought or idea of a self is present, it may reflect a variety of factors...I am a father, I am a gamer, I am sad, I am rich, and on and on. But all of these elements refer to transient aspects...to change. For most, the idea of a "self" is an idea of a static entity...an idea that is carried throughout life with the sensation that it refers to a fixed being, even when all experience points to the contrary...to the fact that definitions used to define this "person" are always in flux, sooner or later. The only thing that is relatively static is the thought. But even the thought of "I" ebbs and flows, appears and vanishes throughout life. In the waking state we find our "self" to be present. But upon the loss of consciousness, for whatever reason - even deep non-dreaming sleep, the work of fiction disappears along with the very world it inhabits. When the mind and its abstractions come back online, so do the ideas and concepts which give rise to the apparent person.

To be brief, I think it is safe to say that we both do and do not exist, just as the ground of all things is rooted in nothingness, so it is with the person who similarly comes from the endless dancing void. When the mind says you exist, there you are, or at least seem to be. When the mind isn't thinking "poof" you never were.

 

[MaestroMike]

some ppl mad selfish bad for the group but if ur too selfess u can be taken advantage of

 

[DaciaJC]

I'm not going to ruin this thread with religion but western religions aren't any better. Crusades? Holy wars?

If you're referring to the Crusades in the Levant, those were called and organized in response to over 400 years of continuous and ongoing Islamic aggression and conquest of Christian lands as well as increasing numbers of attacks by Muslims on Christian pilgrims traveling to the Holy Land. They didn't just spontaneously kick off for no good reason.

 

[NotMyProblemAnymoreCunt]

I got into all this kind of stuff a few months back resulting in me renouncing the religion I was born into but never really connected with. Have a read up on Advaita Vedanta if you’re interested in this kind of thing, or don’t if you’re just stoned.

Yeah I was born into that religion myself. I'm a full on atheist and never really connected with that religion or any other religion in general

 

[Agent_Nobody]

Why Your Ego Is an Illusion

The Buddhist take on the self.

www.psychologytoday.com

I came across an interesting article ask this. At first I had a knee jerk reaction and daid "Of course it does!" but according to certain eastern philosophies namely Buddhism it does not, at least not in the way we think it does.

"The self, or “not-self” (anatta), is composed of five elements (skandhas), namely, body, sensation, perception, will, and consciousness. The five skandhas are in a constant state of flux but together create for the not-self the illusion of integrity and continuity, that is, the illusion of the self.


This explains why, when I try to become aware of myself, I can only ever become aware of such and such perception, such and such sensation, or such and such thought, but never of any actual core self."

So I'm in the no it doesn't camp now.

As someone who has had and has relatives with brain damage, alzheimer's, strokes, dementia, as well as a few friends with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, it kinda easily becomes apparent; no not in the sense of being a specific personality or ego, but that doesn’t mean it was never there.

The brain changes all the time, it is not a set thing; and with that personalities and egos change too, sometimes drastically even without injury, disease or drugs.

The only ‘core self’ is the one you hold and view for yourself at this very moment as well as your thoughts and moral convictions. In a sense it’s basically: what do you value in yourself? or for yourself? as well as people or things you care about.…that’s ego.

Losing that sense momentarily is basically meditation…. Losing it entirely? It was oddly described in Avatar: The Last Airbender:



It was a shockingly deep show philosophically despite the target age (think it was 8+ or something like that).

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Of course it exists. If it didn't, all those selfies would just be pictures of floating cameras in unkempt bathrooms.

 

[12Goblins]

 

[Joyful]

consciousness is simply the most coherent of dream states

 

[Soodanim]

I don't like shitting on discussion, especially when it's an interesting subject, but feel like this is one of those topics that tries too hard to deny something that is self-evident. We can read all we like, but when we're done the axiomatic truth has not been debunked and all we've done is argued semantics.

Case in point:

"The self, or “not-self” (anatta), is composed of five elements (skandhas), namely, body, sensation, perception, will, and consciousness. The five skandhas are in a constant state of flux but together create for the not-self the illusion of integrity and continuity, that is, the illusion of the self.

All this does is rename self to not-self. The elements still remain, and separating a whole into 5 parts doesn't erase the fact that we are each a product of various systems and experiences.