InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jarvmyr wrote
>This means “me” is never a solid concept or identity, it must actually change to make way for new life to continue through the lens of evolution. Adaptation and plasticity are the defining, and arguably most powerful characteristics of most, if not all life.
It just seems like they haven't properly defined self and have some confused idea of what self is, rather than having any real issue with the concept. It seems to be they are using some kind of Buddhist definition which makes no sense, similar to Sam Harris. Oh wait they do come out and actually say it.
>From the Buddhist perspective, the idea of ‘individual self’ is an illusion.
I agree the Buddhist definition of self is an illusion, incoherent, makes no sense and doesn't really match up with what people actually mean by self. So I just avoid using such definition and lean towards more materialist definitions.
I like to just use a definition of self = body, but I'm also partial to some dictionary definitions
>
: the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person
>
>https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/self
waytogoal OP t1_jaryz51 wrote
How about just that "mental image" you think is the "owner" of you? That internal monologue? Is that really you? Or a heap of past habits and social norms? Should you give importance to this mental construct?
Even with your definition: "the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person", I am arguing exactly these are changing all the time, this "collection of evolving soup" doesn't form a "coherent thing" i.e., self.
waytogoal OP t1_jas09lj wrote
Let me elaborate. You can say that you - an individual physical organism exist by all means of course (even Buddhists acknowledge this and use person to refer to it, they also know the mind and body exist). This article is about that "mental construct" guiding your desire, what you think is normal, what kind of personality you are, who you should mingle with (I would say most people's idea of "self" stick closely to this). This article says this construct is not important.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas5rol wrote
> This article is about that "mental construct" guiding your desire,
That mental construct is often know as conscious activity. Once you treat it like, that it makes sense.
The issue with your article is you are confusing conscious activity with self. They are different things and if you confuse them, then things don't make sense and hence you'll think the self is an illusion.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas5dng wrote
>How about just that "mental image" you think is the "owner" of you?
I am a body, which includes a brain, that brain has conscious and unconscious activity. So mental image is just a process in the brain, that models the body.
I'm not sure what you mean of as owner. It's just the body, most the times it's unconscious activity which drives what I do and say, but with higher level more complex activity there is conscious brain activity involved.
>That internal monologue? Is that really you? Or a heap of past habits and social norms?
The internal monologue is just conscious brain activity. No that's not me, it's a tiny aspect of me.
>Should you give importance to this mental construct?
It's just called consciousness. Just a tiny but important aspect of me.
​
>Even with your definition: "the union of elements (such as body, emotions, thoughts, and sensations) that constitute the individuality and identity of a person", I am arguing exactly these are changing all the time,
So what, pretty much everything in the world is constantly changing all the time.
>this "collection of evolving soup" doesn't form a "coherent thing" i.e., self.
Not even you actually believe this. Let's use a real life example. Lets say Alice rapes and murders one of your relatives. If you catch them and are about to call the police, and Alice says don't, I'm a different person, there is no self, so it's not my fault. Would you look at them and actually think that there is no "coherent thing" called Alice which you can hold responsible for raping and killing your relative? Would you actually let them go or would you think that actually, there is this "coherent thing" called Alice that is meaningfully the same and deserves justice/rehabilitation.
waytogoal OP t1_jas6y36 wrote
What did I just read?
About Alice's case, the individual exists, exactly what "self" image this person has or claims to have is irrelevant and unimportant (and arguably doesn't exist except in Alice's head).
The article exactly calls for focusing on the consequence of your action (verb) and worry less about your "self" (noun), are you serious with this response?
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas7tsx wrote
>About Alice's case, the individual exists,
Exactly, there is a "coherent thing" Alice, which is what most people actually mean.
>exactly what "self" image this person has or claims to have is irrelevant and unimportant (and arguably doesn't exist except in Alice's head).
Exactly, this Buddhist idea of self, is irrelevant, unimportant and which has no application to reality.
There is no reason to every use this Buddhist definition and every time anyone uses it they will get incoherent conclusions.
If you want to talk about this mental construct then call it consciousness or whatever.
waytogoal OP t1_jas8rzd wrote
Well, I don't think so, that collection of organic matter is called a person or individual. I have never heard people use "self" to refer to that.
Self usually means that sense of self, that awareness/agency owning your thoughts.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jas9z3k wrote
>Well, I don't think so, that collection of organic matter is called a person or individual. I have never heard people use "self" to refer to that.
I literally quoted a dictionary definition which referred to the "body".
So_frickin_tasty t1_jaw2ht5 wrote
You're not arguing in good faith. You are arguing across a semantic and somatic chasm, one the OP is willing and able to bridge and you are not.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jawe1tl wrote
>You're not arguing in good faith. You are arguing across a semantic and somatic chasm, one the OP is willing and able to bridge and you are not.
The op wants to use some incoherent definition of self which and doesn't exist.
The OP's whole point is that their definition of self is an illusion. I'm just agreeing but saying I don't use that definition, and that outside of Buddhism most people really use that definition.
If you use materialist definitions, you don't have any of the issues or confusion especially compared to the Buddhist definitions.
My question to you is how is it possible for the OP or you to put forth any kind of coherent argument for me to address when you use inherently incoherent definitions of self?
Isn't it guaranteed for some people to think I'm arguing in bad faith when discussing something using such an inherently incoherent definition. Isn't it guaranteed that someone will think I'm arguing semantics against something with an inherently incoherent definition?
Mummelpuffin t1_jb62yxy wrote
People talk about trying to "find themselves" or to figure out what they inherently want, what their inherent values are, etc., which all requires having the sort of "self" you're insisting people don't believe in.
So_frickin_tasty t1_jaw22u7 wrote
The OP has demonstrated they are willing to explain their definitions. This is just dismissive, unreflective. You could simply say: "I don't know enough about Buddhism to make authoritative statements about their definitions".
The ball is in your court when you respond to them. The OP is incoherent TO YOU because you are not comprehending any conceptual argument being made. So according to you, YOU don't understand what they are saying and it invalidates them. Perhaps you could use some "self" awareness.
InTheEndEntropyWins t1_jawfgkh wrote
> The OP is incoherent TO YOU
That's not the argument. The argument is that the whole article is talking about how the Buddhist definition of self doesn't make sense and how the self is an illusion. Hence the Buddhist definition of self is incoherent.
I mainly agree with the article that the Buddhist definition of self probably has no useful application in the world or your world view.
But that's fine since nothing hinges on the Bhuddisht idea of self, it's all based on materialist definitions of self.
So_frickin_tasty t1_jawh0hb wrote
I hit the nail on the head, unfortunately.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments