Is the self an illusion?

[DaveC426913]

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.

The counter-argument is simply "What if we are simply programmed to believe we are individual selves?"
Intuitively, we think we know, but it is not apparent how to resolve this paradox until we walk through the logic that Descartes popularized, namely: If the question is being asked 'Do I exist' then whatever it is that is doing that asking - whetever form it may take - exists.

Another reason to believe the self is not an illusion.

Rational philosophers may not be satisfied with mere belief.

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.

I don't know what that means.

You have to somehow show that it is possible that the self is an illusion.

The premise is that that is the question being posed. Again: what if everything I know is few to me through a tube/wire? Do I exist?
Intuitively we may think so, but that's not a rational argument.

Do you think that it is possible that you are being fed everything you think, feel, and articulate.

It's a philosophical question. It is possible for the sake of argument. The Wachowski Bros made three movies to make the point.

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

How we get that data is outside the scope of the thought experiment.
Some guy in a lab is a perfectly valid feeder. There is nothing that says everyone is a brain in a vat, only that I am a brain in a vat.

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

Well, again, what we personally think is less relevant than what we can logically defend. Which is why I brought up Descartes.

Right out of the gate you have invoked the “self”.

So what though? that's a self which - before we have a chance to reason it out - could be an illusion.

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”

We don't know that until the logical steps are assembled. It is Descartes who is most famous for succinctly and eloquently codifying the logical argument.

That would also mean reason, logic, and the scientific method were also fed to us through the tubes.

No. Logic is an internal thing.

Whoever is doing the feeding could well be God,

Could be. Could also be just some dude in a lab with a brain in a jar.

as it has taught us that God is the source of all consciousness, and consciousness is the medium he uses to transport his feed.

All taught to you by an external source. What God did has been fed to you by the dude in his lab - as is the existence of God itself.

You don't have any way of logically showing that God objectively exists outside what Dr. Dude is feeding you.

That feed is the source of all knowledge and sensations, and is therefore “all knowing” and “ all powerful”. How is that NOT God?

Because he is literally just a Dude in a lab.

You can say he is metaphorically a god to you, but he is, in reality, just a guy with a lab, a bunch of equipment and an active imagination.


Not that I want to lean on it as source material, but The Matrix does raise these questions:

1. How do we know* our whole world isn't fed into the back of our head? (by "know" I mean logically conclude, as opposed to just believe.)

2. The entity doing the feeding is just a person/persons/machine - with no special powers of their own - just access to sophisticated technology. If we were to escape our vat, we would be just as capable of wielding that technology as anyone else. In other words, not a god - except perhaps metaphorically.

The conclusion is - as Descartes said: we cannot know anything about anything - except that the thing that is doing the doubting exists.

 

[DaveC426913]

...the one constant is the "I" which each of us have in common.

No.
The only "I" I can be sure of is my own. In the strictest sense, I cannot be sure you have an "I".

The ways you might not have an "I" are myriad:

You might be a dream/hallucination I'm having.
You might be a P-zombie (a philosophical zombie - look it up - it's a thing) with superior typing skills.
You might be images and sounds fed to me through a tube or wire into the back of my head.
etc.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

No.
The only "I" I can be sure of is my own. In the strictest sense, I cannot be sure you have an "I".

The ways you might not have an "I" are myriad:

You might be a dream/hallucination I'm having.
You might be a P-zombie (a philosophical zombie - look it up - it's a thing) with superior typing skills.
You might be images and sounds fed to me through a tube or wire into the back of my head.
etc.

True, but for the sake of argument, we might assume the inner awareness is present in each of us--providing you're not in a coma or the living dead.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

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

And without a brain and body we couldn't experience life. The machine is a necessity in order to experience life, or so it seems.

 

[DaveC426913]

True, but for the sake of argument, we might assume the inner awareness is present in each of us--providing you're not in a coma or the living dead.

The argument is "Is the self an llusion?"...

If you just a priori assume it exists, then this discussion is over before it has begun.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

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.

I've been put down for surgery and didn't come out of it till two days later. No dreams, no existence until I woke up again. It's a good analogy for death, I agree.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

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

I think the ego is a mask that is worn for the world. It's real if you believe it's real.
"I am" is the recognition of existence, and when you dig deeply, there is nothing but the hidden observer. The ego is a construct of ideas about the self and others, our place in the world.

 

[Pinball1970]

I've been put down for surgery and didn't come out of it till two days later. No dreams, no existence until I woke up again. It's a good analogy for death, I agree.

We have evolved to be able to picture the world and ourselves in it. That is how we survive.
In terms of consciousness that does not interest me that much, the philosophy side.
The brain is a remarkably complex organ but so is the liver!
Millions of years of Evolution.

 

[Trek]

I think the ego is a mask that is worn for the world. It's real if you believe it's real.
"I am" is the recognition of existence, and when you dig deeply, there is nothing but the hidden observer. The ego is a construct of ideas about the self and others, our place in the world.

I used to think that.
But the “observer” is the person (soul/ego), and the designations we apply to ourselves, and have applied to us, are false egos/ identities.

An inflated ego is a perversion of the ego.
An egotistical person is one who overrates his false ego.
What do you think?

 

[James R]

If the "self" is just whatever is doing the thinking, then it's practically commonly sense that the self exists. Something is having the thoughts you're having right now. If you want to call that something "myself", then that's fine.

Dig a little deeper, though, and you'll start to run into difficulties.

For instance, what is it that causes you to have this thought rather than that thought? Is it sort of random, or is there a little homunculous inside your head pulling levers? That is more or less where ideas of a "soul" come from.

When you decide to raise your right arm, how does the message "raise the right arm" actually get transmitted from your "self" to through to controlling the physical object - the arm?

If you believe there's a little man - a soul - who is in the driver's seat, pulling levers to make your arm move, then how, exactly, is the control system connected up? How could a non-material soul control a physical body?

On the other hand, the problem seems to be solved easily enough by dispensing with the little man inside who is supposedly needed to pull the levers to raise the arm. Maybe, whatever is happening is nothing more than the brain firing neurons and sending nerve impulses through to the arm.

But in that case, who was it that made the decision to raise the arm in the first place? If there's no soul and just a brain, then it must be the brain itself that is generating the desire to raise the arm, then pulling its own levers, so to speak.

But if there's no little man inside, then what's the root cause of the decision to raise the arm. Can we find a cause somewhere in the brain that acts as the prime mover? I think we can. I think that the brain is constantly active, firing off nerve impulses in a semi-random way, but constrained by the physical structure that has solidified from the time of one's birth until now - the moment one decides to raise the arm.

But in this explanation, there's no "self" that decides to raise the arm. There's just a brain doing what brains do. No little man pulling the levers. There's no "self centre" in the brain to be found, akin to the "visual cortex" or the "temporal lobe". What you refer to as "myself" is, quite literally, an illusion, if you're picturing the little man pulling the levers.

 

[North Cali Sammy]

I used to think that.
But the “observer” is the person (soul/ego), and the designations we apply to ourselves, and have applied to us, are false egos/ identities.

An inflated ego is a perversion of the ego.
An egotistical person is one who overrates his false ego.
What do you think?

I think the true nature of the observer is awareness; however, what she perceives is filtered through a conditioned mind. This might be the ego you are referring. Our perceptions of ourselves and the world around us are built on our experiences of life and people. In my opinion, this is true of everyone.

We often play roles in life, depending on our circumstances. Some people are cast into roles by those around them. They might choose not to play the part though.

I don't think an inflated ego is a perversion as much as it is a confidence in the individual's abilities. Yet it will show whether an inflated ego is simply that.

 

[Trek]

I more or less agree with you except the last paragraph. A perversion of the ego also exists within a lack of confidence.
People with a lack of confidence can, if they are in a superior position, use that position to cause harm to confident people purely because they can.
Am ugly person can be jealous of a person looked upon as beautiful.
All the perceived sins can be utilised by a person who completely lacks confidence given the opportunity.

What do you think to that?