The Persistent Self

[Simon Anders]

There is no self, there is merely experience?
If there is no self, how can there be experience? For there to be experience, there needs to differentiation, at least some kind of selfhood.

A part of experience is labeled self. A part is labeled world. Then we draw arrows of action from one portion of experience to the other, given one the 'power' so to speak.

I will mull over your next much harder set of questions. Though perhaps it would be best to say 'I don't know.' but I do not find this evidence that there is one portion of experience that should be therefore labeled 'self'.

 

[glaucon]

Well, then, I have a problem with your parameter because I deduce from what you said that ‘the referent of the usage of the indexical I’ can only be the mind. What else is the ‘referent’ in your sentence;...

Your problem is fine, but your deduction is incorrect. You needn't had even made one, as I had spelled it out: the referent is that which we seek to define: the 'self'.

...
– but even then the mind’s reference is always in the picture and this ‘I’ is separate and apart from the totality of what is perceived and the ‘mind’ rules the roost.

Separate yes, apart no. For the 'self' to make any sense at all, it must be the totality. Which is why I earlier noted: the mind does not perceive. And so, it's not the mind that rules the roost.

What I should have written is that ‘the mind translates after the fact’. And how can this not have anything to do with the topic of ‘What is the persistent self?’? I am suggesting that perhaps what is ‘Self’ is, is beyond mind if all the mind does is translate what is already there.

Ah, yes, this makes more sense.
Also, I see now why you think it relevant. Interestingly, i come to the exact opposite conclusion you do. Since what the mind does is 'translate' what it has been given, the 'self' then, must be limited therein.

I understand you are saying: The Self is the user of the term, is referring to the ‘I’. And I take that one step further to ask ‘What is referring to the ‘I’ but the mind?’. I therefore deduce that the idea ‘I’ is in control’. Just the idea and nothing more than that for that is all ‘I’ is, it does not describe the actual Self. There’s that mind loop again.

Again, I agree with you, and come to the opposite conclusion. The indexical is only evoked when the mind turns to face itself: it is this ability that defines the 'self'.
I'm still not sure what you mean by 'actual'...

Control is only a story we tell about behaviour – if we don’t tell a story, then what control is there? Isn’t control a cause, and interpretation based on conditioning.

Not at all. Control is an affective application.

No, it does not assume this at all, quite the opposite. It assumes the subject/object relationship can only exist in the mind and its on-going interpretation after the fact. No complication in this at all.

You're assuming such a thing as 'fact'.
And yes, it does assume an objective ontology: subject/object distinction necessarily introduces such.

Also, what else is ‘known’ except for what the mind ‘knows’ – it tells a story about what it knows but the knowing of Self or something (whatever we call this persistence) is there with or without stories.

I'm unclear as to what you mean by "story", as opposed to 'knowledge'.

You say the ‘I’ is not there when we are not thinking about it – you are right, the thought of the ‘I’ is clearly not there when we are not thinking about it – derrrrr – but that sense of being/persistence, of ????? is still there and this is my point. Mind does not have to be there for that ?????? to be there.

I disagree.
The sense of persistence only appears during a remembering or reflecting mental act.


To clarify: my various comments regarding off-topic comments referred specifically to your replies to my previous post. That post was a meta-post; not part of the topic at hand.

 

[glaucon]

Isn't this a conceptualization (meaning this as a transitive active, creative process on an object) of the separate self. Once this separate self is conceptualized then we can conceive of it as self-directed by interpreting the causal relationship with this self as authority?

I would agree with this.

The 'self' is a project: ever revisable, constantly edited and modified.

 

[Simon Anders]

from the outside also?
Ever read Bateson's Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity?

 

[Simon Anders]

Thank you for your responses participants.

I found this interesting but I think I would be repeating myself very soon. A couple of issues were raised in this thread not directly tied to the persistant self which I find myself thinking of more now.

When I come up with a forumulation I will start another thread on one of these issues.

thanks again,
Simon

 

[onemoment]

glaucom: the referent is that which we seek to define

Then can you explain why you say ‘the referent of the usage of the indexical ‘I’ – that surely is both mind and Self – or maybe the implication is that Self is mind.

glaucom: Separate yes, apart no

Sorry!!!!! Separate but not apart? How does that work? So you are saying it is separate and a part of the totality. But how can we examine if Self is separate or the totality of experiencing when we persist is interpreting reality with the mind?

glaucom: it's not the mind that rules the roost.

Well it appears to be that the mind is ruling the roost in that it is in the mind that we seek to find an answer. Could not the answer be wordless?

glaucom: Since what the mind does is 'translate' what it has been given, the 'self' then, must be limited therein.

Why must this be so? Could we not be limiting our ability to see what self really is if it is in the confines of mind? I assume that is what you mean.

onemoment: it does not describe the actual Self.
glaucom: what do you mean by 'actual'?

What I mean by this is that the mind is conditioned thought. Each of us brings our own acquired knowledge and biases in this translation. So, it is not just what is there with the senses that we are exploring.

You say, I think, that the ‘Self’ is only evoked when the mind turns to face itself, but that can’t be true because then the Self is not there when the mind is not there and how can that then be describing this persistent ‘something’ (call it Self if you want). If it drops in and out depending on whether we are thinking of it or not, then it can not be what we are looking to define.

glaucoma: Control is an affective application.

But you agreed in an early post with my statement that ‘cause (is) just a matter of perspective and interpretation? Just mind stuff?' So how can we say ‘control’ by X caused this or that?

glaucoma: I'm unclear as to what you mean by "story", as opposed to 'knowledge'.

Knowledge, story, is it any different? It is always and ever a translation of a cause we know nothing about, using words we have universally agreed to refer to this or that. What true understanding can there be in this?

glaucoma: The sense of persistence only appears during a remembering or reflecting mental act.

So are you saying then that maybe the Self is not there in sleep? It disappears. Then maybe this persistent self you are talking about, that relies on the mind to be there, is not the persistent Self we are all trying to define. And if it wasn't there when we weren't thinking about it, how do we know we weren't thinking about it if the Self was not there? It's like you are saying that the Self is just what appears during reflection (maybe then you do not think there is anything persistent?) and somehow concluding that this is then what the self is, this 'I'. But that is not defining what is there that lets us remember that we were not reflecting about the 'l' a minute ago but was there to remember there was no reflecting going on.

 

[onemoment]

Originally Posted by onemoment
Perhaps we need to look at what might be there prior to the interpretations of the mind. ”

glaucon: Firstly: this assumes that there is some sort of 'prior thing'.
Secondly: an examination of this sort is pragmatically impossible.

It assumes nothing. It suggests that we may need to explore what might be there to explore.

And, why is it impossible? Isn't there something there prior to the mind's translation of what that 'something' might be? Don't things happen even when we are not interpreting what it is that is happening? Maybe the mind may not even exist if that ????? was not there?

 

[swarm]

glaucon
the mind doesn't perceive; the senses do.

That would be difficult to defend I think. Particularly since some, like Buddhists, see the mind as an internal sense organ, perceiving toughts, dreams, feelings, ...

 

[Enmos]

That would be difficult to defend I think. Particularly since some, like Buddhists, see the mind as an internal sense organ, perceiving toughts, dreams, feelings, ...

It's wrong. The sense just provide the raw data.. the brain then processes it and utilizes it.

 

[swarm]

Simon Anders
Certainly some attributes often continue. But many change.

Change is not a problem as long as pattern cohesion is not lost.

shouldn't all the changes at least force us to speak in terms of percentages of identity?

No, the person is a gestalt. Whole at 7 for 7 and whole at 50 for 50 even though if the two were juxtaposed there would be 47 years of necessary differences. Only if there is damage which degrades the person would one be temped to talk about them being less than whole, like Alzheimer’s.

If I have a pattern of blocks and I over a period of time slowly replace all the blocks and change the pattern it this 'thing' has changed.

It depends on if the pattern is in part or wholly dependent on what it is composed from. The pattern known as the Mona Lisa can be recognized composed out of a variety of materials. If your blocks spell a word and you replace them with different blocks that still have the same letters, the essence of the message is unchanged. But replace them with blocks that have different letters and that pattern is lost.

I still see no evidence that it is the same person - who has changed. It could just as easily be another person, which, in fact, is what I think it is.

Somehow I suspect this is not truly the case. I suspect like most people you think you are the person at your core that you have always been. That the changes you have absorb are growth of that person, not its destruction and replacement with a different person.

I thought your point was that they reconstructed the same self. I misunderstood. I thought the point was the ability to reconstruct the same self.

The people involve had severe untreatable depression. In the before interview they were barely responsive. Immediately after they were a blank slate, as might be expected with their short term memory wiped. They then seemed to go through a process of remembering and reconstructing who they were, minus the depression. Very interesting to watch. Afterward they had a memory gap consisting of what had been in short term memory, but had not yet been laid down in long term memory.

it is doing something quite different.

Yet it is the same body. The new cells com from the old cells. Enough memories are retained.

At what point does change in something make it something else?

There is not a crisp line of delineation. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it does. Sometimes there is a loss, but it retains key elements. Ultimately when the pattern is lost, i.e. death.

I just see no evidence that it is the same self that is changed.

Yet you feel it is easier to posit some other self?

for the actual person in question, whether or not it is the same experiencer is an issue.

Not so far in my experience. YMMV

Perhaps ...

You complain becoming who you are from who you were is fragile and then argue from a "perhaps?" Becoming who you are is the actual common experience. I think I can wait on "perhaps" until it actually happens.

 

[swarm]

Enmos
The sense just provide the raw data.. the brain then processes it and utilizes it.

And when you dream what provides the "raw data?"

 

[Enmos]

And when you dream what provides the "raw data?"

It's just rehashed data. Plus you incorporate new raw data as well (ears/touch/smell. Possibly light and dark as well.)

 

[glaucon]

onemoment,

Despite your pedantic abuse of my nick' I will respond to some of your points.

Then can you explain why you say ‘the referent of the usage of the indexical ‘I’ – that surely is both mind and Self – or maybe the implication is that Self is mind.

You're assuming it is both 'self' and mind.
Beyond that comment, I don't understand your question.

Sorry!!!!! Separate but not apart? How does that work? So you are saying it is separate and a part of the totality. But how can we examine if Self is separate or the totality of experiencing when we persist is interpreting reality with the mind?

Simply: separate, as in identifiably distinct, and yet apart, as in not necessarily the same entity.
One thing is a thought, another is an activity.

Well it appears to be that the mind is ruling the roost in that it is in the mind that we seek to find an answer. Could not the answer be wordless?

Again, you're assuming that what we seek is in fact the mind (not that I necessarily disagree with you on this..).
It could very well be wordless. Or, as with the Tao, when we give it a name, it is not that thing anymore...

Why must this be so? Could we not be limiting our ability to see what self really is if it is in the confines of mind? I assume that is what you mean.

This must be so because it is that organizing activity that is the 'self' (in my opinion..). I can't see how a 'self' could be anything outside of the scope of the mind.

What I mean by this is that the mind is conditioned thought. Each of us brings our own acquired knowledge and biases in this translation. So, it is not just what is there with the senses that we are exploring.

Interesting.
What do you mean by "..not just what is there with the senses..."?
Do you mean that there are other sorts of things in the mind?
If so, what kinds of things?

You say, I think, that the ‘Self’ is only evoked when the mind turns to face itself, but that can’t be true because then the Self is not there when the mind is not there and how can that then be describing this persistent ‘something’ (call it Self if you want). If it drops in and out depending on whether we are thinking of it or not, then it can not be what we are looking to define.

You have interpreted me somewhat correctly. It is only our conceptualization of 'self' that is invoked when we turn our 'mind's eye' to it. The self itself is not such a static thing.
However, do note that I'm not equating mind with self.

But you agreed in an early post with my statement that ‘cause (is) just a matter of perspective and interpretation? Just mind stuff?' So how can we say ‘control’ by X caused this or that?

We cannot.
I never linked "control" with "cause".

Knowledge, story, is it any different? It is always and ever a translation of a cause we know nothing about, using words we have universally agreed to refer to this or that. What true understanding can there be in this?

Different from a linguistic point of view. 'Knowledge' has rules and limits; socially agreed upon structure.
Nonetheless, I do see your point. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "true understanding".

So are you saying then that maybe the Self is not there in sleep? It disappears. Then maybe this persistent self you are talking about, that relies on the mind to be there, is not the persistent Self we are all trying to define. And if it wasn't there when we weren't thinking about it, how do we know we weren't thinking about it if the Self was not there? It's like you are saying that the Self is just what appears during reflection (maybe then you do not think there is anything persistent?) and somehow concluding that this is then what the self is, this 'I'. But that is not defining what is there that lets us remember that we were not reflecting about the 'l' a minute ago but was there to remember there was no reflecting going on.

Close, but not quite.
You're missing the semantical differentiation.
The 'self' that appears to us, that we 'evoke' when we look to it, that is not available to us when we sleep, is not the object of our search.
However, it does indicate that there is such an entity.
Think of parallax.

It assumes nothing. It suggests that we may need to explore what might be there to explore.

??
Did you even read your post?
You said: "...we need to look at what might be there prior..."
my emphasis

??

...
And, why is it impossible? Isn't there something there prior to the mind's translation of what that 'something' might be? Don't things happen even when we are not interpreting what it is that is happening? Maybe the mind may not even exist if that ????? was not there?

It is a pragmatic impossibility to use the mind to investigate that which comes before the operation of the mind.
If you don't understand this, I cannot possibly help you.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

wait-so you can't examine yourself objectively, because you are too you to be objective?

 

[glaucon]

wait-so you can't examine yourself objectively, because you are too you to be objective?

No.

You can't examine yourself objectively, because there's no such thing as objective.

Also, "you" cannot objectify "you".

 

[glaucon]

That would be difficult to defend I think. Particularly since some, like Buddhists, see the mind as an internal sense organ, perceiving toughts, dreams, feelings, ...

Nope. The opposite would.

Sense organs are clearly defined.

It's just rehashed data. Plus you incorporate new raw data as well (ears/touch/smell. Possibly light and dark as well.)

It's wrong. The sense just provide the raw data.. the brain then processes it and utilizes it.

Exactly.
It is the purpose of the operations of the brain to give structure and meaning to data.

 

[swarm]

Enmos
It's just rehashed data.

That's a nice theory. I see no way you could prove it. Also its irrelevant. Its still being sensed even if it is rehashed. In your dreams you see, you hear, etc. and the source is internal.

glaucon
Sense organs are clearly defined.

Not so far.

It is the purpose of the operations of the brain to give structure and meaning to data.

Trying to assign "purpose" to things like operations of a brain is a formidable task. Also that does not exclude it from percieving internal data just as it percieves external data.

 

[Enmos]

That's a nice theory. I see no way you could prove it. Also its irrelevant. Its still being sensed even if it is rehashed. In your dreams you see, you hear, etc. and the source is internal.

Yep the source is internal. I think this is pretty mainstream actually.

 

[glaucon]

That's a nice theory. I see no way you could prove it. Also its irrelevant. Its still being sensed even if it is rehashed. In your dreams you see, you hear, etc. and the source is internal.

'Sensed' yes. But clearly not in the same sense (no pun..) in which we sense while awake.
As for being sourced internally, that depends on what you mean by 'source'. If by this you mean to indicate a locus, then I have no problem with that. If however you mean something affective, something causative, the I would have to disagree.

Not so far.

Far enough to be useful.

Trying to assign "purpose" to things like operations of a brain is a formidable task. Also that does not exclude it from percieving internal data just as it percieves external data.

Formidable indeed, and yet, like any dynamic, as long as we can construct an inductive model that is effective, that suffices.
You're right that this wouldn't preclude any such activity. I am however, unclear as to what you mean by the perception of internal data. For myself, I would say this is contradictory. Unless you're proposing that there is some sort of internal sensory organ.....
It seems that we're moving into some sort of Kantian interpretation of the mind here....

 

[swarm]

glaucon
'Sensed' yes. But clearly not in the same sense (no pun..) in which we sense while awake.

Not the same source, but yes sensed in exactly the same manner as data from external sources is sensed, using the same parts of the brain.

Far enough to be useful.

Far enough for you to be comfortable, but not far enough to be useful.

I am however, unclear as to what you mean by the perception of internal data. For myself, I would say this is contradictory. Unless you're proposing that there is some sort of internal sensory organ.....

You are prejudicing your treatment of internal data because of its source, but I see no reason to allow that. If I sense things in a dream how is that data different from sensing something outside a dream? Once data has entered the brain proper, its just data.

It seems that we're moving into some sort of Kantian interpretation of the mind here....

Did you a priori wash your mouth out with soap before saying Kant?