The self is not physical, but symbolic

What are symbols and why are symbols meaningful to me? One answer might be “the self is not physical, it is symbolic”—Becker.

Mathematics is, I think, a useful means to start an effort for comprehending the nature of symbols.

Mathematical concepts are referred to by symbols, both written and audible. Eighty-five or quatre-vingt-cinq references the same concept as does 85. Common mathematical symbols such as 0, 1, i, pi and e are meaningful because we have become familiar with the concepts that they symbolize when we have studied mathematics in school. Our schools and colleges are interested primarily in helping us use these symbols as an algorithmic means for solving mathematical problems.

I am a retired engineer and I worked constantly for four years in college learning how to do math. Doing math is very important to engineers, understanding math is of little consequence to an engineer’s job performance. I suspect most engineers would be somewhat dumbfounded if they were to be asked ‘do your understand mathematics’.

The degree of meaning that these symbols hold for each of us is dependent upon the relationship we have with the concept. Almost all of us will find that the symbols 1, 2, 3, and 4 are meaningful even before we go to school. Those who have studied math in grade school and high school will find that the other symbols mentioned have a meaning of some dimension.

L&N, Lakoff and Nunez, co-authors of “Where Mathematics Comes From”, tell us that “to comprehend a mathematical symbol is to associate it with a concept—something meaningful in human cognition that is ultimately grounded in experience and created via neural mechanisms.”

At birth an infant has a minimal innate arithmetic ability. This ability to add and subtract small numbers is called subitizing. (I am speaking of a cardinal number—a number that specifies how many objects there are in a collection, don’t confuse this with numeral—a symbol). Many animals display this subitizing ability.

In addition to subitizing the child, while playing with objects, develops other cognitive capacities such as grouping, ordering, pairing, memory, exhaustion-detection, cardinal-number assignment, and independent order.

When a child goes to school the teacher depends upon all of these past experiences as prerequisites for a child to readily comprehend arithmetic.

It is our experience in the world that eventually gives symbols significance. As we get older we travel far from these original experiences that give our world of symbols their meaning. We are constantly adding new worldly experiences to augment this meaning we attach to symbols. I suspect that if we could examine closely one of our concepts of a particular symbol we would find that concept to be as complex and convoluted as is our DNA. If we could trace the historical sequences of the structuring of a particular concept it might be as instructive as is a similar examination of our DNA.

Concepts, i.e. symbols, i.e. abstract ideas, are like a gigantic chemical molecule that continues to grow in size and in complexity as we pass through life. The symbol gains grounding from our experiences but the concept also has a great deal that result from our imagination. I think we might say that a symbol is an abstract idea created by experience and imagination, which becomes a significant meaning in our life.

If such is the case can you comprehend why some people might ‘go bananas’ when the flag is burned?

Confidential and non-societal symbols also have an uncanny parapsychological aspect attached to them. I suppose these private symbols could be thought of as being alive. And what picks them up? The subconscious mind—there's a language there beyond our control. As a simple exercise, to distinguish a mood, observe your environment on a given day and notice which colors pop out at you. I'm in a dark blue mood this morning.

So is the self a symbol to itself or just to others?

So is the self a symbol to itself or just to others?

Great question.

I would say that the self is an object to the self much in the same way as a tree is an object to the self. I do not think I could offer a good explanation of that at this time however.

This requires some thought.

If the self were a symbol to itself then it would be turned inside out. My point exactly: what's inside? and what's out?

If such is the case can you comprehend why some people might ‘go bananas’ when the flag is burned?

Sure. The odd thing is that the symbol gets prioritized over the thing itself. Destroy the actual phsycial country, but don't mess with the flag. So many people see only their ideas and covet them.

I do however disagree. My self is really quite physical.

Reading this, I can't help but wonder. coberst, have you ever been laid up in a lot of pain? No one and no symbol is going to take away the knowledge of the self, and the physicality of that. You must deal with it, all by yourself(no matter how many people are around the bed with sad looks in their eyes). I think perhaps nothing can put a person in touch with the "self", like a great deal of pain over a good bit of time.

I might have read you wrong ...i dunno.

Well if I myself am a symbol to others--that makes sense in Derridean way--everything I perceive is text that I interpret. Since no other person will ever be fully present to me then I only interpret them the same way I interpret another. But it is much more difficult for me to believe that the self is just a symbol to myself since that posits that there is something there that is my self in its entirity, but that I can't fully understand it. If this is meant in the sense that I am never fully present to my conscious mind, I can see that. In fact the entire concept of the unconscious is predicted on the fact that are aspects of myself that are hidden even from myself. So that in taking part of myself to represent the self in its entirity I am doing something like interpreting a symbol in order to understand the whole. This though seems like a different process than what occurs when another trys to understand my self.

Reading this, I can't help but wonder. coberst, have you ever been laid up in a lot of pain? No one and no symbol is going to take away the knowledge of the self, and the physicality of that. You must deal with it, all by yourself(no matter how many people are around the bed with sad looks in their eyes). I think perhaps nothing can put a person in touch with the "self", like a great deal of pain over a good bit of time.

I might have read you wrong ...i dunno.

I think that the concept of self is different from the concept of body. I think that every animal has a concept of body but humans are the only animal with a concept of self. I am using the concept of ego and self as being the same. The self is a concept containing a consciousness of "I". The self is self-conscious. No animal other than the human animal is self-conscious.

maxg

My consciousness of my self leads me to be conscious of a similiar consciousness in others. My consciousness of anothers self-consciousness is consciousness of an object and is no different than my sonsciousness of someones feeling toward their flag. This is all very difficult to talk about isn't it. We can only use metaphors for such a conversation. We need the help of poets here.

No animal other than the human animal is self-conscious.

On what evidence do you base that assertion?

Baron Max

On what evidence do you base that assertion?

Baron Max


I read lots of stuff and I have never yet read anyone that I consider to be credible who says anything to the contrary. Perhaps you have, in which case give me the reference so I can know better than I do now.

My consciousness of my self leads me to be conscious of a similiar consciousness in others. My consciousness of anothers self-consciousness is consciousness of an object and is no different than my sonsciousness of someones feeling toward their flag. This is all very difficult to talk about isn't it. We can only use metaphors for such a conversation. We need the help of poets here.

I wouldn't argue any differently, but my consciousness of other as self-conscious is essentially different than my own self-consciousness.

I have certain evidence that others are conscious in the same manner I am conscious and from that I deduce that they have the same self-consciousness that I do, but there is no certainty. I may mistakingly deduce that a computer is self-conscious, for example, if it is programmed to act in such a way. However, I tend to believe that my own self-consciousness is certain ("I think therefore I am" and I "know" I think because I experience it).

The question I have is whether that self-consciousness is really an awareness of my consciousness in it totality (e.g., I can posit, based on my experiences of dreams, etc. the existence of an unconsious that I only partially know). In that case, when I think of "myself" am I only thinking of a part that represents a whole? And if that is the case am I thinking of myself as a sign (or symbol if you wish) that stands in place for a greater whole?

Flag burning is itself a symbol. You would deny that symbol in order to preserve another symbol. Why is one symbol given preference over another?

The personality is just the summary of nth number of factors completely outside of your control, it doesnt define 'you' atall, it defines everything else but 'you'- i.e. your genes and your environment. So what's actually being symbolised isnt even anything that you could rightly claim as your own anyway.

Even Chris Crocker thinks the idea of the self as some sort of expression of an 'inner core' is stupid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDa5UiRkDdY

maxg

I do not know. I have not got to that part of my lesson yet. Or perhaps I did but it flew over my head. I find that every time a reread a chapter I find things that I completely missed before. In some cases I have read these things more than three times.

Flag burning is itself a symbol. You would deny that symbol in order to preserve another symbol. Why is one symbol given preference over another?

Very good point.

We all are a complex of ideologies. I might be a Catholic, Democrat, American, etc. I think that there must be one ideology that is dominant to which all the others must come second when there is conflict. And in some cases just plain selfishness and greed overrides all ideologies.

The personality is just the summary of nth number of factors completely outside of your control, it doesnt define 'you' atall, it defines everything else but 'you'- i.e. your genes and your environment. So what's actually being symbolised isnt even anything that you could rightly claim as your own anyway.

Even Chris Crocker thinks the idea of the self as some sort of expression of an 'inner core' is stupid!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDa5UiRkDdY


I think that I disagree with everything you said here.

Why?

Why?


Because your statements generally comport with my comprehension of the matter.

Sorry I left out the phrase 'do not'. I think that my OP speaks for my comprehension of the matter and represents my understanding of the matter after a good bit of study.

Because your statements generally comport with my comprehension of the matter.
Well i think that was already a given, i just wondered what specifically in my post you disagreed with and why.
If you cant or simply dont want to explain though, no bother. ;)

Well i think that was already a given, i just wondered what specifically in my post you disagreed with and why.
If you cant or simply dont want to explain though, no bother. ;)


The task of stating my differences with your statement is far too much for me to handle. I would have to write and study much to make such a statement.