Is the self an illusion?

[Trek]

And yet here we are still debating it, 400 years later.

Who’s debating it?
It’s a cool observation to articulate. I will give Descartes that. But it is already known, even if denied. It is axiomatic.
We have no choice but to know it.

The question at the core of this thread (is the self an illusion) was essentially unresolved before he came along.

It wasn’t unresolved…
It wasn’t articulated in such a way amongst philosophers.

Lots of smart people questioned whether what we see or hear could be trusted and deduced therefore, that perhaps even the self was an illusion. It was Descartes' statement that resolved the paradox.

Lots of smart people also figured out the obvious, when the question of the self being an illusion, came up. Just like the “do we have free will question”.

It is only "obvious" to us - here the 21st century - because a brilliant philosopher in the 16th century formulated it and spoke it, to be captured in the history books.

A brilliant philosopher he may have been, but to say we only arrive at that conclusion because he articulated it, is a bit of a stretch.
It is obvious because we always refer to ourselves as “I am” prior to any other designation. Even God referred to Himself as “I AM”.

It's a bit disingenuous and condescending to say after-the-fact that (something that was theretofore unresolved for centuries) is "obvious". If obvious things had been so obvious, they would have been written into the history books earlier than they are.

Are you suggesting that some obvious things aren’t known until someone puts it in a book?

His brilliance imo, is being able to articulate it, so we can see the mechanism.

 

[DaveC426913]

His brilliance imo, is being able to articulate it, so we can see the mechanism.

OK then. We are in agreement after all. Only took, like, ten posts.

 

[Trek]

OK then. We are in agreement after all. Only took, like, ten posts.

Do you agree that it is something we all intrinsically know?

 

[DaveC426913]

Do you agree that it is something we all intrinsically know?

No. It is something we all believe, without a logical rationale to back it up.

Descartes provided the logic that crystalizes or belief into logic.

But not everyone knows Descartes...

 

[(Q)]

It is obvious because we always refer to ourselves as “I am” prior to any other designation. Even God referred to Himself as “I AM”.

While that is true as God referred to Himself as the Act of Being, in perfection, this did not include man, who was only participant of Gods act of being.

Aristotle conceived God as the First Mover but outside the world, because of his defective concept of "act", which is more physical than metaphysical. What St. Thomas did was to take this concept and raise it to a metaphysical plane, and then he combined it with Plato's concept of "participation". But he did all this under the guiding light of the faith, since it is the Bible that describes God as HE WHO IS (Exodus, 3): he saw that God is the fullness of being, the very Act of Being, the perfection of being, the subsistent act of being; and everything else is a participation in the act of being, which must be created by God "out of nothing", since God cannot share His infinite act of being. ~~ Joseph de Torre

 

[TheVat]

What he means is: whatever it is that is asking the question 'do I exist?' - be it a brain in a vat, or a program snippet - that thing exists, and has a self.

Felt my ears burning.

I see a lot of debate over the reality of the self as a debate on what is meant by a "self." If it's just a process of thought then the Cartesian statement holds up nicely. Thinking implies existence. If self is also taken as some essence of a person that persists over time, that's more inviting of debate. Someone could posit that "I" is a tenuous narrative developed to function in society, and that all consciousness is actually some unitary phenomenon that we are just little curlicues of, but imagining we are separate. I'm not sure science has the methods for that sort of question. But it can explore how brains generate a sense of continuity and identity and how they interact with the world. And linguistics can explore how language is used to form a sense of self.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

The self is real, bodies exist that have brains.

We tend to lump a lot inside the word "Self," including the ego and other mental perceptions. I would suggest that we are something much deeper than what we might think. A lot of what we show the world is a mask, built on what we believe or what others have taught us to believe.

 

[Pinball1970]

A lot of what we show the world is a mask, built on what we believe or what others have taught us to believe.

It is still us though, our brain. When the brain dies all that dies too.

 

[Trek]

We tend to lump a lot inside the word "Self," including the ego and other mental perceptions. I would suggest that we are something much deeper than what we might think. A lot of what we show the world is a mask, built on what we believe or what others have taught us to believe.

The true self is the “I” in my opinion.
The source of the “I” is the ultimate “I”…
God.
That is, in my opinion, the answer at the back of life’s quiz book.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

It is still us though, our brain. When the brain dies all that dies too.

I'm aware of my human existence. It's a happening, this life that is. I agree that the abyss is death, so was it before we were born. We came from nothing, and we will return to nothing. When people die other people are born. Trek is right, in my opinion, the one constant is the "I" which each of us have in common.

 

[DaveC426913]

The source of the “I” is the ultimate “I”…
God.

Unfortunately, like everything else, we can't know God is not an illusion.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

Unfortunately, like everything else, we can't know God is not an illusion.

Depends on our definition of God. Western tradition paints an image that many don't except.

 

[TheVat]

Welp, I tried. Won't bother to engage with this thread again.

 

[Trek]

Unfortunately, like everything else, we can't know God is not an illusion.

When you say “we”, you mean you, and people who share your worldview. Right?

 

[DaveC426913]

When you say “we”, you mean you, and people who share your worldview. Right?

No. You don't know God is not an illusion either. Like everything else in our brain-in-a-vat and simulation scenarios, it could be just one more thing that's fed in.

Depends on our definition of God.

It does not.

 

[Trek]

Unfortunately, like everything else, we can't know God is not an illusion.

And you know that how?
Given that you believe everything, including the self, is nothing but an illusion.

You can’t have your cake, and eat it

 

[Trek]

Yes, the ego is an illusion, but what fun you can have expressing it.

I think the ego is real.
“I am” is the ego…

 

[DaveC426913]

And you know that how?

That is the premise of this thread. None of us can know anything outside our own self is real. Everything could be fed to us by tubes or wires.
With that as the premise, the onus now shifts to you (the collective you, I mean) to demonstrate how God is not fed to you by wires or tubes.

Given that you believe everything, including the self, is nothing but an illusion.

That is not a given, no. I'm not actually espousing what I believe.
This is for the sake of argument - the topic of this thread.


The answer is that the logic required, being internally consistent, is not something fed from outside.

So, the argument goes as such:

Premise: We cannot know anything outside our self is real.
It follows that anything we gather from the outside world might be fed to us, and may not exist in the real word outside our vat/simulation.

The challenge, then, is for anyone to demonstrate how the existence of God - and their understanding of it - is not subject to this. (After all, we all learned about God through our wires and tubes, so we can't know it's not part of the illusion).

 

[Trek]

That is the premise of this thread. None of us can know anything outside our own self is real. Everything could be fed to us by tubes or wires.
With that as the premise, the onus now shifts to you (the collective you, I mean) to demonstrate how God is not fed to you by wires or tubes.

I’m going of the title of the thread which asks the question “Is the self an illusion?”.
The act of postulating a reason as to why it may be that the self is an illusion, is imo, a reason to assume the self is not an illusion. The idea of being a brain in a vat, only shifts the reality of ‘self’ to the agent that is feeding the brains. At some point a’self’ must exist.

That is not a given, no. I'm not actually espousing what I believe.
This is for the sake of argument - the topic of this thread.

Another reason to believe the self is not an illusion.
It makes no sense to be on the side of it s possible that the self is an illusion without offering something from your self. You have to somehow show that it is possible that the self is an illusion. That goes for all selves, not yours and mine.
Do you think that it is possible that you are being fed everything you think, feel, and articulate.

Do you think that if it were true, then the feeder is a “self”?

Or do you think there is no such thing as a “self” at all?

So, the argument goes as such:

Premise: We cannot know anything outside our self is real.
It follows that anything we gather from the outside world might be fed to us, and may not exist in the real word outside our vat/simulation.

Right out of the gate you have invoked the “self”.
Do I think it is possible that everything we are being fed is an illusion? Of course. But all that means is that “I” ( the self) is under illusion. That is not the same as saying “ the self is an illusion”

The challenge, then, is for anyone to demonstrate how the existence of God - and their understanding of it - is not subject to this. (After all, we all learned about God through our wires and tubes, so we can't know it's not part of the illusion).

That would also mean reason, logic, and the scientific method were also fed to us through the tubes. Whoever is doing the feeding could well be God, as it has taught us that God is the source of all consciousness, and consciousness is the medium he uses to transport his feed.
That feed is the source of all knowledge and sensations, and is therefore “all knowing” and “ all powerful”. How is that NOT God?

 

[Pinball1970]

I'm aware of my human existence. It's a happening, this life that is. I agree that the abyss is death, so was it before we were born. We came from nothing, and we will return to nothing. When people die other people are born. Trek is right, in my opinion, the one constant is the "I" which each of us have in common.

I'm on ignore wrt to that poster. What you said I agree with. Abyss is a bit much, why abyss?
It's just "stop."
Ever had a general and tried to count down from 100? How far you get? 99?
That is stop.