philosophical view on consciousness.

MayCaesar

You mentioned that, if one's thoughts and memories were to be all erased, then the "I" would still be present. Yet how would you verify it? Since without memories of past events one would not be able to even remember ever being in the past, I am not sure in what sense continuity of the "I" can be assumed. It is like suddenly waking up in an unfamiliar place, not knowing who you are and not remembering anything: whatever the "I" was before is gone completely.

Is my reasoning flawed?

Dee

@maxx

The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts

As usual I take Maxxs very first assertion ( below)  and ask him to demonstrate how he knows such , I just bet he flies into yet another rage

OK, prove it? How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?

maxx

I am not sure if you ever done any meditation before; yet if one "stills" all thoughts, then you still have the sense of self with out the thoughts; correct? Think of it this way; all are thoughts  are based on external input; for instance, as a child we learn to use language from others and thus begins our thinking process. Assuming we never learned any language; no thoughts , the "I" part is still there. Assuming for the argument, if we grew up without thoughts and could still function, you would have nothing but your main senses that this sense of self use!. When we begin to think, we build plenty of different thought processes, ideas and memories; all which dictates our action. Through out the years we develop one main thought-line with more discipline so to speak, that assumes control; it even begins to "think:" it is the self. Yet again, that self would still exist without that thought.  Awareness itself, without the thoughts involved is the "I" . Our thoughts are the by-products of the self, not the reason for it. @MayCaesar

maxx

aside i am not going to debate this post with you, for all you do is turn it into a circus with out debating; this is philosophy; so there is no proof. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

 i am not going to debate this post with you, for all you do is turn it into a circus with out debating;

You made a statement you cannot back up so yet again invent an excuse to flee. If you make a statement at least  have the balls to back it up.

 this is philosophy; so there is no proof.

Ah right got it so that's why you refuse to answer questions.........MAXX THINKS ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IS UNFAIR AS PHILOSOPHERS NEVER ASK QUESTIONS........THAT ANOTHER NEW MAXX EXCUSE TO FLEE WHEN HE'S CALLED ON HIS NONSENSE 



 

 

maxx

nope, not on this post dee. go elsewhere and earn your dumb points. this is a philosophical issue, and i am only interested in decent philosophical replies, not you.  i want those who will actually debate, not someone who just says, nonsense, you are wrong, bunch of lies and so on; @Dee

Dee

@maxx

But I never said any of that I clearly.stated .....
OK, prove it? How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?

So do you wish to carry on running?

maxx

i done told you; one does not prove a philosophical debate. The logic however is in my opening statement; in continuing the debate, you must show me the flaws and use explanations. A baby is not born with thoughts, yet still has awareness and this awareness is the "I", for it needs no thoughts. thoughts are just what keeps the brain talking with each other, to dictate action and ideas and such. With out those thoughts, that "I" is still there. It performs no action , dictates no course; it is just in the back ground so to speak. If you wish to actually debate the issue, then fine; but do so correctly. Use other posts for your circle talk.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


done told you; one does not prove a philosophical debate

That's not true, how do you prove you cannot prove one?

. The logic however is in my opening statement;

But you just said " Done told you; one does not prove a philosophical debate" 

That's avoiding answering what you stated....The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thought........so talk me through the " logic" of that assertion?

 in continuing the debate, you must show me the flaws and use explanations.

I'm asking you repeatedly to defend your opening opinion, can you at least try?

 A baby is not born with thoughts, yet still has awareness and this awareness is the "I",

Please stop making stuff  up babies think from the time they are born these first thoughts are called protothoughts.

Babies have awareness, so you're now defining the "I" as awareness, how do you prove its not a thought?


 for it needs no thoughts

Well prove it then?

. thoughts are just what keeps the brain talking with each other, to dictate action and ideas and such. With out those thoughts, that "I" is still there. It performs no action , dictates no course; it is just in the back ground so to speak.

Prove that the "I" is just bot another thought?


If you wish to actually debate the issue, then fine; but do so correctly. Use other posts for your circle talk.

Maxx still trying to avoid answering a question on his first opinion and still running.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I am not sure if you ever done any meditation before; yet if one "stills" all thoughts, then you still have the sense of self with out the thoughts; correct? Think of it this way; all are thoughts  are based on external input; for instance, as a child we learn to use language from others and thus begins our thinking process. Assuming we never learned any language; no thoughts , the "I" part is still there. Assuming for the argument, if we grew up without thoughts and could still function, you would have nothing but your main senses that this sense of self use!. When we begin to think, we build plenty of different thought processes, ideas and memories; all which dictates our action. Through out the years we develop one main thought-line with more discipline so to speak, that assumes control; it even begins to "think:" it is the self. Yet again, that self would still exist without that thought.  Awareness itself, without the thoughts involved is the "I" . Our thoughts are the by-products of the self, not the reason for it. @MayCaesar

You mentioned that if one stills all thoughts, then they still have the sense of self. Yet recognition of it requires a thought, does it not? For me to say "my thoughts are stilled" or "my thoughts were stilled", I have to think it first. In this respect, how can the sense of self be separated from thoughts?
I do not meditate, but my understanding of meditation is that it calms your mind and allows you to focus better on something (including the sense of thoughtlessness). It does not really stop your thinking: humans are thinking every moment that they are alive, their thoughts just might be more vague when they are mentally more relaxed.

Would you also not agree that the ability to think is exactly what separates an intelligent being from a non-intelligent one? If we erase our thinking completely, then what is left but basic instincts? When you touch a hot stove, your hand jerk reaction is automatic, it does not require thinking - however finding the causal connection between you touching a stove and experiencing a burn does. Without thinking, it seems to me, you could keep touching the stove repeatedly and jerking your hand afterwards. Such existence does not seem to be more complex than that of a tree or a mushroom. And I am not sure what "self" would mean for a mushroom.

maxx

Remember this is just a philosophical view, so let me try this a different way; and i may bounce around a bit. First i am not talking about the ego; i think therefore i am. I am also not talking about consciousness as simply being awake. Yes it is true you need a thought to know or agree that you are self, yet a thought is not needed to "be" self. My example of a baby is close to explaining it. The baby has no thoughts yet it is aware. The "sense" of self is not the self but a sense; a feeling. For instance; we have a sense of smell, yet need to thoughts to smell; or a sense of touch, which needs no thoughts to feel. The thoughts simply interpret these senses. Self is a sense, consciousness perceptions of our own awareness, which needs no thoughts to operate; thoughts just interpret things for the brain. One could say that self without thoughts is simply the brains motor running, with the operator sitting there waiting on thoughts and instincts to dictate action for it. All of our perceptions, we import from external sources and we are simply aware of them, and it is the thoughts that interpret these perceptions and dictate action. Yet without these thoughts, we are still aware, and that is the basic and fundamental aspect of self.  Our awareness is dependent upon the perceptions of our senses of external stimuli, yet with out these perceptions and without thoughts( we may be in what one calls a veggie state) our brain is still lit so to speak, it still has the ability to run, this spark, this motor running, is what the self is. @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

Maxx still refuses to prove his assertion below despite being asked several times .......


The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts.

How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?

MayCaesar

maxx said:

Remember this is just a philosophical view, so let me try this a different way; and i may bounce around a bit. First i am not talking about the ego; i think therefore i am. I am also not talking about consciousness as simply being awake. Yes it is true you need a thought to know or agree that you are self, yet a thought is not needed to "be" self. My example of a baby is close to explaining it. The baby has no thoughts yet it is aware. The "sense" of self is not the self but a sense; a feeling. For instance; we have a sense of smell, yet need to thoughts to smell; or a sense of touch, which needs no thoughts to feel. The thoughts simply interpret these senses. Self is a sense, consciousness perceptions of our own awareness, which needs no thoughts to operate; thoughts just interpret things for the brain. One could say that self without thoughts is simply the brains motor running, with the operator sitting there waiting on thoughts and instincts to dictate action for it. All of our perceptions, we import from external sources and we are simply aware of them, and it is the thoughts that interpret these perceptions and dictate action. Yet without these thoughts, we are still aware, and that is the basic and fundamental aspect of self.  Our awareness is dependent upon the perceptions of our senses of external stimuli, yet with out these perceptions and without thoughts( we may be in what one calls a veggie state) our brain is still lit so to speak, it still has the ability to run, this spark, this motor running, is what the self is. @MayCaesar

I am having a hard time understanding then what exactly you are talking about. At a very early stage of their development babies have only a very basic awareness, and they have no concept of "I": there is no separation between "I" and the rest of the world. Therefore I do not understand in what sense they can feel "self", nor what "self" even is given how many examples you have given of what it is not.
Smell without a label put on it, indeed, is just a feeling, one you might not even notice: try going on a hike on a rainy day while thinking about something, and the smell of dewy grass (quite strong objectively) will completely elude your senses. Only once you think about it, "Wow, the dewy grass smells good!", does the feeling become acknowledged.

It sounds like what you are describing is something like a Python program which contains no commands. You can run it, but it will produce absolutely nothing. In order for it to generate anything, there have to be some explicit processing done, and without that processing there is nothing there. And just like there can be no empty Python program producing any output, I do not understand how there can be a human being not having any thoughts - no such human beings have ever been documented, and they appear to be a biological impossibility. And if that is the case, then, however much you would like to separate thoughts from something else (I still am not sure what that something else exactly is), this separation does not reflect any physical phenomenon. You can no more separate thinking from being than you can separate an electron from its charge.

maxx

I am trying to pull you away from thinking of this from a psychological or scientific view. The confusion here, is what is considered the self. The main definition is the self is a collection of thoughts, ideas, memories, values and so on; everything that makes you a different person than someone else.  In this philosophical point of view, that is but mere additions. It is like thinking that the fuel in a car is the car. It is the switch that starts the car that is the self.  True, babies have no true concept of "I", but the "I" is still there. The self is the background of our consciousness. It is the spark of our existence. Many years ago i developed training to stop my thoughts. At first it was hard for we all rambling on internally. Soon i stopped for 30 seconds, then a minute. After a couple of days, i could quiet my thoughts for 5 minutes. What happens is I began "thinking" in images and association. Complete introspection is hard to still, simply because of the build up on how we learned from birth. A total invalid, one born without the five basic senses could not function physically or mentally. Yet the spark that turn the ignition on is still there and is what is in the background; it is the actual self and it requires no input to have been activated, nor to continue running. It may not do anymore that run and await instructions it will never receive. It as you say, very similar to a blank computer, yet our brain is biologically alive. So in erasing the scientific point of view; perhaps by thinking philosophically and abstractly. one may consider that consciousness alone, is the self.  The self, is created at birth; what we learn, our thoughts are just add ons that allow our lives to function. Consider it this way. Take a chess board minus the pieces. The board is the self. There is nothing on it yet it will remain the self. As we add pieces, we can operate with-in the self. The board is the self, the pieces are the thoughts, values ideas and so on that we learn from birth. The chess pieces are not really aware of the board(so to  speak) but just use it; the board is not aware of the pieces; it is simply there for the benefit of the pieces. @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx


There is no "self" you're constantly redefining what you claim is self and making unhelpful analogies like "Consider it this way. Take a chess board minus the pieces. The board is the self. There is nothing on it yet it will remain the self. "

Thats a typically vague piececof New Age sounding clap trap and void of meaningful mplications.


David Humes thinking on the subject to me ends the whole debate , I've yet to see an argument that comes close to refuting his opinion  on the topic.......

According to Hume, if we carefully examine the contents of our experience, we find that there are only two distinct entities, “impressions” and “ideas”:

• IMPRESSIONS—Impressions are the basic sensations of our experience, the elemental data of our minds: pain, pleasure, heat, cold, happiness, grief, fear, exhilaration, and so on. These impressions are “lively” and “vivid.”

• IDEAS—Ideas are copies of impressions, and as a result they are less “lively” and “vivid.” Ideas include thoughts and images that are built up from our primary impressions through a variety of relationships, but because they are derivative copies of impressions they are once removed from reality.

If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists. Hume goes on to explain:

Read David Hume, from On Personal Identity

“I can never catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception.” Even when we actively look for the self, Hume contends, we simply can’t find it! All of our experiences are perceptions, and none of these perceptions resemble a unified and permanent self-identity that exists over time. Furthermore, when we are not experiencing our perceptions—as when we sleep—there is no reason to suppose that our self exists in any form. Similarly, when our body dies and all empirical sensations cease, it makes no sense to believe that our self continues to exist in some form. Death is final. And what of people who claim that they do experience a self in their stream of perceptions? Hume announces that “I must confess I can reason no longer with him. . . . He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me.” In other words, as an empiricist, Hume cannot do more than provide an honest description and analysis of his own experience, within which there is no self to be found. But if Hume is right, then why does virtually everybody but Hume believe with certainty that they do have a self-identity that persists through time and serves to unify their life and give it meaning? After all, it’s not enough to say to the rest of the world: You’re wrong, and I’m right, and I’m not going to discuss the issue if you insist on disagreeing with me. Let’s examine Hume’s explanation of the self that most people would claim they experience.

maxx

i think i will wait for may or someone else; you will end up back to your constant insults. You are confusing identity; the "make-up of our selves as self itself. The self is in the back ground and is the spark of our consciousness. Our thoughts, ideas and so on are just based upon external perceptions, which in turn, leads to introspection; The music on the record so to speak. the record is the self, the music is the identity of the record. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


i think i will wait for may or someone else; you will end up back to your constant insults.

What a dreadfully poor excuse for avoiding debate , there is not one insult in my piece. Actually you are the one that always flys into a rage when questioned.


You are confusing identity; the "make-up of our selves as self itself.

I'm confusing nothing as there's only impressions and ideas , if you disagree  tell me what is self as in are you your ideas or impressions if not what are you?


 The self is in the back ground and is the spark of our consciousness

What is the " background" you're explaining nothing?

. Our thoughts, ideas and so on are just based upon external perceptions, which in turn, leads to introspection;

I know what thoughts are what is self if not impressions or ideas?

The music on the record so to speak. the record is the self, the music is the identity of the record.

That makes no sense at all , what is this so called self that's different from mpressions / ideas?



So If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives

If you disagree what is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?


. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists. 



The "I" of consciousness is not any of your thoughts.

How did you conclude the " I" is not also a thought? What tests can you run to conclude this?


I've asked you this question above several times you refuse to answer whys that?

Barnardot

@Dee ;there is not one insult in my piece.

Thats right because there are actually a100 insults in every 1 of your peaces.

Dee

@Barnardot


Thats right because there are actually a100 insults in every 1 of your peaces.


I see your "ability" at simple math is on a par with your "ability" at spelling .......have a look at this folks ....... your peaces.....LOL 

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I am trying to pull you away from thinking of this from a psychological or scientific view. The confusion here, is what is considered the self. The main definition is the self is a collection of thoughts, ideas, memories, values and so on; everything that makes you a different person than someone else.  In this philosophical point of view, that is but mere additions. It is like thinking that the fuel in a car is the car. It is the switch that starts the car that is the self.  True, babies have no true concept of "I", but the "I" is still there. The self is the background of our consciousness. It is the spark of our existence. Many years ago i developed training to stop my thoughts. At first it was hard for we all rambling on internally. Soon i stopped for 30 seconds, then a minute. After a couple of days, i could quiet my thoughts for 5 minutes. What happens is I began "thinking" in images and association. Complete introspection is hard to still, simply because of the build up on how we learned from birth. A total invalid, one born without the five basic senses could not function physically or mentally. Yet the spark that turn the ignition on is still there and is what is in the background; it is the actual self and it requires no input to have been activated, nor to continue running. It may not do anymore that run and await instructions it will never receive. It as you say, very similar to a blank computer, yet our brain is biologically alive. So in erasing the scientific point of view; perhaps by thinking philosophically and abstractly. one may consider that consciousness alone, is the self.  The self, is created at birth; what we learn, our thoughts are just add ons that allow our lives to function. Consider it this way. Take a chess board minus the pieces. The board is the self. There is nothing on it yet it will remain the self. As we add pieces, we can operate with-in the self. The board is the self, the pieces are the thoughts, values ideas and so on that we learn from birth. The chess pieces are not really aware of the board(so to  speak) but just use it; the board is not aware of the pieces; it is simply there for the benefit of the pieces. @MayCaesar

I am baffled at your use of the term "philosophical" and the distinction between it and "psychological"/"scientific" you make. What is the point of a philosophical concept if it is not related to reality? Either there is an entity you call "self" the existence of each can be detected with our consciousness, or there is none, and in the latter case defining some fantasy concept that exists only in the metaphorical sense seems pointless.

The switch that starts the car is the human being. It is not the "self" of the car. A car cannot start itself (yet).
Similarly, a chess board without pieces is just a bunch of wood. The pieces and the chess rules are what make it into something more than that. In fact, you can play chess without a wooden board - online, for instance, or even in your head. The board is not an important part of the game.

I do not understand what you mean by "the background of our consciousness". What background? What does it look/feel like?

I am sorry, but I am still failing to understand what exactly you are talking about. You are not the first one talking about things, and a lot of Buddhists and other meditation practitioners talk about something like this - but it is always extremely vague and fuzzy. Have I experienced states of consciousness characterized by laser-sharp focus on something without the usual verbal chatter in my mind? Sure; the moment I fell in love at the first sight (which also taught me that "love at the first sight" is not a fantasy, although an extremely rare phenomenon) my internal voice was silent. I was still the same human being as I am now though, there was no some weird entity inside of me that took over. Is that what you mean by "self": the state of consciousness characterized by laser-sharp focus on something to the point of near complete obliteration of the internal monologue? In that case you would be mistaken to assume that it is characterized by absence of thought. Human mind is working all the time and producing thoughts, some of those thoughts simply might not be clearly verbalized, or even verbalizable.

maxx

Idenity, our thoughts,  ideas and memories,  are what makes ud different than others.  Yet all these perceptions,  are simply imprinted upon the self. The selfhas no identity,  no awareness,  it is like i stated, it is just the background of our consciousness.  It is the motherboard of the computer . Thos is the self in which we all are born with, the spark behind our identity. Another anology  tTake a book, the blank pages are the self, and were there from its beginnings. The words, ideas,  beliefs, and so on  that are in the book is the identity.  @MayCaesar

maxx

At work,  can't answer 2 people. Just read myreply to may. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


Idenity, our thoughts,  ideas and memories,  are what makes ud different than others.

Yes , and?

  Yet all these perceptions,  are simply imprinted upon the self.

That makes no sense at all. What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?


 The selfhas no identity,  no awareness,  it is like i stated, it is just the background of our consciousness.

So self awareness is what exactly?

What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?


  It is the motherboard of the computer .

What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life? 



Thos is the self in which we all are born with, the spark behind our identity. Another anology  tTake a book, the blank pages are the self, and were there from its beginnings. The words, ideas,  beliefs, and so on  that are in the book is the i

What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?



The self is in the back ground and is the spark of our consciousness

What is the " background" you're explaining nothing?

maxx

Self awareness are just thoughts identifying themselves.  Dont start running circles dee. We LEARN identity  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


Self awareness are just thoughts identifying themselves.

So you're admitting now that the experience of one's  personality / individuality are just thoughts, right?

"Thoughts identifying themselves" what does that even mean? How does a thought " identity itself" talk me through it?

  Dont start running circles dee

The only one doing that is you as you refuse to answer either May or me regards this mysterious " background " that you  cannot define.

Here is the latest question your running in circles from .....What is this unified identity you appeal to over your entire life?

. We LEARN identity

But you cannot even define this unified identity you're constantly appealing to.

maxx

I agreed that awareness is iur thougts and ideals and memories manifestating in the brain. I also said that is. not the self . Idenity and personality .are partially developed at birth due to specific traits the rest is learned and developed as we grow by other people,  how they perceive us, how they treat us, by the environment and so on
All ofvthis are external stimuli. The self and identity are separate  what you are aware of,  are your thoughts,  in other words,  i think therfore i am. But you are still AM without those thoughts. Our thoughts use our perceptions to be aware,  but not aware of self. The motor of the boat is the AM, the self  @Dee @Dee

Dee

@maxx

I agreed that awareness is iur thougts and ideals and memories manifestating in the brain. I also said that is. not the self .

But I'm still asking you what is this unified sense of identity you claim we have? The self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists.


Idenity and personality .are partially developed at birth due to specific traits the rest is learned and developed as we grow by other people

No they're not , so called personality developes over time.

  how they perceive us, how they treat us, by the environment and so on
All ofvthis are external stimuli.

And, how is this relevant to what im asking?


The self and identity are separate  what you are aware of,  are your thoughts,  in other words,

You're still, not answering what I'm asking , lets try this way , what is this permanent underlying state you call self?


  i think therfore i am.

The Cogito is flawed its based on the assumption that the self is a fixed unchanging entity as the so called " self" cannot be pinned down or defined in a simple statement.

Several more equally valid criticisms have being made of Descartes Cogito.

 

 But you are still AM without those thoughts.

So you still, are without thoughts ? Do explain?


 Our thoughts use our perceptions to be aware,  but not aware of self.

If you're not aware of self how can you even talk meaningfully about it.


The motor of the boat is the AM, the sellf


That yet again is avoiding my questions what is this permanent underlying state you call self describe it please?

Are you anger?,love? hate, your emotions? Your feelings or a combination of all? These are ever changing so what is this permanent underlying state you call self?

You cannot meaningfully say what it is and saying chessboard and pieces etc , etc  is not convincing at all.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

Idenity, our thoughts,  ideas and memories,  are what makes ud different than others.  Yet all these perceptions,  are simply imprinted upon the self. The selfhas no identity,  no awareness,  it is like i stated, it is just the background of our consciousness.  It is the motherboard of the computer . Thos is the self in which we all are born with, the spark behind our identity. Another anology  tTake a book, the blank pages are the self, and were there from its beginnings. The words, ideas,  beliefs, and so on  that are in the book is the identity.  @MayCaesar

I am sorry, but you are not answering my real question. You are talking about certain properties the "self" allegedly has, but you never really explain what it is. I asked you what you meant by "background of consciousness"; this sentence in itself does not shed any light on what you are talking about. You have suggested many analogies, but every analogy has the flaw of involving aspects specific to the objects involved in it, and I would like to hear a "clear" definition.

A blank page is a blank page, it is just a piece of material. Do you then by "self" mean just the material structure of the brain, without all the electric signals transmitted by neurons? And does it make sense to talk about the former without the latter? It seems like talking about the electron, but not its charge - it is not clear what in this case we are even talking about.

maxx

come on may, step outside of the box here. we are just 2 philosophers on a park bench, drinking tea, and playing with ideas.  The self has no awareness, It has no properties other than being. It is what we call the brains life force, or engine. It is the "am" of the i think therfore i am. all of our perceptions, ideas, memories are imprinted on the brain, yet without all of this, the brain still functions; that is the self. Take a moment to separate the identify from the idea of self. Take an empty bowl, that is the self.  the soup you put into it, is the identity, the personality. @MayCaesar

maxx

uh no. most of your personality develops over time, but babies are born with the core of a certain personality, due to inherited traits. come on dee everyone knows that. and i am not going to have you keep asking questions that ive already answered. The self is the motor running of the brain, without awareness. It is the core of our brain. everything else is imprinted on our brains. You consider self your identity, but it is your thoughts telling you this. What Are 4 Types of Child Personalities? (medicinenet.com)   @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Uh yes I said personality develops over time already.

You actually said babies dont have thoughts until I corrected you by claiming correctly they have proto thoughts everyone knows that.

Here is what you still refuse to address ....


Are you anger?,love? hate, your emotions? Your feelings or a combination of all? These are ever changing so what is this permanent underlying state you call self?

No doubt your reply will be the bowl and the soup or some other Deepak Chopra sounding tripe.

maxx

Proto thoughts are not thoughts.  They are images on the brain.  And wheee inbthe world did i say wevwere emotions? This is a philosophical debate. Again. Without our thoughts,  our personalities,  our beain is still running,  this is the self. How many times do i have to answer your same question.  @Dee

Dee

They are thoughts please stop repeating nonsense.

Please learn to spell.

It's not a philosophy debate as you don't even understand the Cogito.

Even if it was so what?

So our ever changing personalities are our self?.Man oh man,

maxx

Forget it dee. I done told you im not going to run in circles with you. If i wanted a debate on cognitive function,  i would have  created one . The philosophy,  is that we need no identity,  to have a self. It exists independently.  I gave you many examples and you keep asking same questions. The part of the brain, that keeps itself functioning,  with out the thinking process,  is the self.@Dee

Dee

@maxx

Forget it dee. I done told you im not going to run in circles with you.

But that's all you're doing as you refuse to answer ......What is this permanent underlying state you call self?


 If i wanted a debate on cognitive function,  i would have  created one

And you still couldn't answer ......what is this permanent underlying state you call self?

You just said our ever changing thoughts are our self , thats your final answer it seems.

Now its this mysterious part of the brain thats unthinking it seems. Whereabouts in the brain is this located exactly?

Your buddy Descartes had ideas on this but he used the  ridiculous term " soul".



 . The philosophy,  is that we need no identity,  to have a self

Who's philosophy exactly give me a name? You're just making stuff up now.


. It exists independently. 

Prove it?

 I gave you many examples and you keep asking same questions.

Book / page , Chessboard/pieces, Bowl/ soup ......seriously?

The part of the brain, that keeps itself functioning,  with out the thinking process,  is the self.

Ok where is it located in the brain exactly?

maxx

No where, and i mean no where did i say that our ever changing thoughts are our self. No where did i say our thoughts or emotions are our self. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

No where, and i mean no where did i say that our ever changing thoughts are our self. No where did i say our thoughts or emotions are our self. 


OK now we are getting somewhere, you said .....The part of the brain, that keeps itself functioning,  with out the thinking process,  is the self.

Ok where is it located in the brain exactly? How  do you locate this "I " that you claim exists as you say it exists in the brain so where exactly ?

maxx

Where? I don't know. Its just the brain running.  Its just the brain operating. The brain needs to thoughts to function.  You may as well ask, where is the identity,  our thoughts located in the brain.  The self is the brain functioning. It can fo so with out identity. let me try this way.  .ONE of the definition  of self is our memory,  our personality,  and so on. That however,  is just the secondary part of self
 What i am calling the actual self, is the life of the brain, the spark behind it all. @Dee

Dee

@maxx


Where? I don't know.

Good , that's what I'm getting at,  no one knows yet claim it's existence. Its again like saying " I believe in god but cannot prove he exists"

 Its just the brain running. Its just the brain operating. The brain needs to thoughts to function. You may as well ask, where is the identity, our thoughts located in the brain. The self is the brain functioning. It can fo sobwith out identity


Hume famously stated below and you have admitted " I don't know" which is the intellectually honest answer so why do you keep attempting to answer when you admit you dont know, no one knows.

I'm not out to say " gotcha" or " I've won" I'm pointing out all talk of self is meaningless in any significant way.



"If we examine these basic data of our experience, we see that they form a fleeting stream of sensations in our mind and that nowhere among them is the sensation of a “constant and invariable” self that exists as a unified identity over the course of our lives. And because the self is not to be found among these continually changing sensations, we can only conclude that there is no good reason for believing that the self exists"

David Hume 

maxx

Again dee this is but a philosophy debate. Its not about proof, but ideas. Scientifically,  i would be right, fot the brain is like a biological computer,  it still able to function with out data. The data is but the identity.  However,  i am trying to contain this debate to a philosophical point of view. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Again dee this is but a philosophy debate

What has that got to do with anything.

. Its not about proof, but ideas.

If you're going to claim something exists you need proof if you wish to convince others, I don't believe in this thing you call " self" as I see no evidence for it, you  admit you don't know like where it's located like  everyone else yet keep claiming it exists which is exactly what a believer in a god does.

Scientifically,  i would be right

Scientifically you're totally wrong as a tiny bit of research would have demonstrated to you. Scientists are mostly agreed that the individual self is more akin to a fictional character than a 4eal thing. You really need to wind that ego in as in constantly saying you're right , is that so important to you?

Why are you still arguing when you admit you don't know?



fot the brain is like a biological computer,  it still able to function with out data. The data is but the identity.

But you cannot locate the self nor can anyone because the " self" is fictional.

  However,  i am trying to contain this debate to a philosophical point of view

Really? By crowing "scientifically I would be right?" , seriously Maxx?

Also you seem to think proof is not required in philosophical discussions for assertions made without proof , whys that , where did you get that notion from? 

maxx

If you wish to create a debate from a biological point of view, be my guest. You havent created a debate in god knows how long. Perhaps you should not reply on a philosophy debate if you think its about proof. Do you  consider philosophy a science? Of course not. So how can it possibly be about proof. Its an exchange of ideas about people and the nature of things.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


If you wish to create a debate from a biological point of view, be my guest.

Why would I do that when science agrees with me there no self despite you saying saying " scientifically I'm right" when scientifically you were wrong?

You havent created a debate in god knows how long.

I created one this morning.

 Perhaps you should not reply on a philosophy debate if you think its about proof

Pay attention you always totally ignore points made when I provide answers to your questions by pretending they weren't I asked ......I said....... Also you seem to think proof is not required in philosophical discussions for assertions made without proof , whys that , where did you get that notion from? 

So can you attempt a response without pretending I didn't cover this?

. Do you  consider philosophy a science? Of course not.

Why are you answering for me?  Philosophy is an empirical yet abstract science that is concerned with wide-ranging empirical patterns instead of particular observations.


So how can it possibly be about proof.

Yes it can unless one adapts a position of extreme scepticism which is a pretty useless pursuit.


Its an exchange of ideas about people and the nature of things.


It's much more than that,  you keep avoiding answering yet again......... you seem to think proof is not required in philosophical discussions for assertions made without proof , whys that , where did you get that notion from? 

 

maxx

philosophy is an abstract science?  This from someone who refuses to accept psychology as one.  well i guess we are done with this debate, for you are straying from the subject anyway. ""Philosophically speaking""( in which this debate is) there is a self.  I have answered your questions many times and gave you several analogies.  I do not know, from this point, what it is you are after. Oh and by the way...Proto-Thoughts | Encyclopedia.com   @Dee

MayCaesar

maxx said:

come on may, step outside of the box here. we are just 2 philosophers on a park bench, drinking tea, and playing with ideas.  The self has no awareness, It has no properties other than being. It is what we call the brains life force, or engine. It is the "am" of the i think therfore i am. all of our perceptions, ideas, memories are imprinted on the brain, yet without all of this, the brain still functions; that is the self. Take a moment to separate the identify from the idea of self. Take an empty bowl, that is the self.  the soup you put into it, is the identity, the personality. @MayCaesar

Sure we are. But since we are playing with ideas, it is nice to first understand what the ideas are, and I am still failing to grasp the concept of "self" you are proposing. You did mention something new now: "life force". Do you then by "self" mean something like many religions call the "soul", something that inhabits human body temporarily, but can exist outside of it as well? If this is the accurate interpretation of your terminology, then we can proceed from here. And if not, then I would ask you to be more precise about what you mean by "self".

You keep using these "empty bowl"-like analogies, but I am afraid they are not doing it for me. An empty bowl is an empty bowl: if the soup is there, then it is a meal, and if not, then it is a piece of wood or ceramic or plastic and little else. If we remove emergent brain functions from the human body, then we will only have a shell running on very basic instincts, a pure nervous system of the kind trees or mushrooms have - is that the "self" you are talking about?

maxx

soul? no not at all. i am comparing the actual self to life of the brain itself. The spark that ignites the running process of it. That is the starting point of the brain. The ignition, and the motor running is the self. Perceptions and identity are just the secondary definition of the self. Without this ignition, this spark, the brain would not run, it would be useless; so my contention here is that the self is the part of the brain that turns on at birth. Everything else, our perceptions, memories, personalities  are secondary to the  life of the brain. The life of the brain; Philosophically speaking, is the self of all of our identity.   @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Ah, so you are talking only about the initial spark, the moment the first electrochemical reaction occurs at the brain? Well, first, I do not think that this is how it works at all: brain does not just pop out of nowhere and gets started, but it is forming gradually, and when the first electrochemical reaction occurs, the brain is too undeveloped for anything even remotely resembling consciousness to be there. And second, if it is only the initial spark that occurred a long time ago, then in what sense this "self" can exist today, in my already well formed brain?

I am still not getting it.

Dee

@maxx


philosophy is an abstract science? 

Yes.


 This from someone who refuses to accept psychology as one. 

Yes, where I live people are allowed have different opinions without others constantly stalking them and arguing otherwise.


 well i guess we are done with this debate, for you are straying from the subject anyway

I haven't strayed once I said the self is a fiction you agreed it cannot be located yet you keep coming back trying to convince me it exits , why is beyond me.


. ""Philosophically speaking""( in which this debate is) there is a self. 

OK then prove Hume and me  wrong as he to my mind was the greatest ever philospher. , so go ahead prove us wrong?

Why do you make stuff up like " scientifically I'm right" when scientifically you were wrong,  you're also wrong philosophically.

I don't think you even know what philosophy is to be honest.


I have answered your questions many times and gave you several analogies. 

Yes you admitted the self couldn't be located just like god cannot be located yet here you are again trying to convince everyone that something you admit cannot be located exists , pretty ridiculous really.

If you think soup is the self  and bowl is the rest is somehow convincing  you're mixing with i-iots , that's like something a bible thumper would say which no doubt you call credible evidence.


I do not know, from this point, what it is you are after. Oh and by the way..

I'm after nothing you're the one who admitted the self cannot be located yet you still stalk me post after post trying to prove a self exists , why.?

I know what proto thoughts are they are still, defined as thoughts something else you denied babies have  incorrectly as usua.l 

maxx

well again "philosophically" speaking, The whole brain is the self; before , as well as after, before anything is imprinted on it. compare it to a sheet of paper; that is our actual self and the words on it is our, personality, our identity of the brain. we have no actual personality, no identity  upon the self, until these words are written on the paper.  now excuse me i will have to refresh my tea. perhaps a cup of earl grey black  .@MayCaesar

maxx

uhhh yeah. ok. you bounce around in circles so much it is not funny. i guess from this point you will resort to insults and ridicule. I suppose it is your way of gaining attention and to make sure others talk to you on this site; sounds like a very sad and lonely life that you have. If you think newborn babies can think that is up to you, howeve3r anyone knows that they only receive images that are imprinted on their brains. images are not thoughts, nor is a baby capable of thinking; they do not have language. It is hard to debate with some one who considers psychology a pseudo science, yet then turns around and says that philosophy is a science. How about you creating a debate entitled babies can think?  heck dee, babies can not even understand anything aside from what they see, and that understanding ios so limited, for they have nothing to compare it to. They are at a stage where all they can do is observe, and their so called proto thoughts are just images .  @Dee