philosophical view on consciousness.

Dee

@maxx

uhhh yeah. ok. you bounce around in circles so much it is not funny.


Uhhhh no . OK I asked you one question regards the self and where its located you admit you  don't know yet you're back.at your usual stalking.


i guess from this point you will resort to insults and ridicule

No that's normally your game I'm not playing so what do you want?

. 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

Here you go right on cue not one insult from me and here you are on the attack again.also I think at this stage we know who the lonely one is as you stalk me constantly. Had you yet another bad day at work!


. If you think newborn babies can think that is up to you

I said they have proto thoughts neuroscience agrees.

, 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.

Pay attention.......PROTO THOUGHTS 


 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.


It is hard to debate with some one who considers psychology a  science, yet then turns around and says that philosophy is not a science.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

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

But brain does not exist "before anything is imprinted on it": the imprinting occurs as the brain evolves, and without it it is just a bunch of matter with no function. Maybe you mean something like the pre-training code of the machine-learning system, where if you run the code on some data, it will produce a functional model, but the code has not been run yet? I can see how you could call that the "self" of the system, although I am not sure what importance it has. From your earlier comments it seems that you believe that this "self" can somehow be observed, or, perhaps, it is the observer - but the code of a machine-learning system does not observe anything, it is just a set of ones and zeros.

maxx

I sit back into my wicker chair and add a splash of rum to my tea. I ponder for a moment. " When ever the spark that ignites the brain, either at birth, or in the womb; That spark that turns the brain on and keeps it on is the actual self. Let us assume this spark begins at birth for the argument."  for a moment i look up at the clouds floating by. " anyway, I guess metaphorically, i am trying to come across the idea, that the engine running of the brain is the self. It has no awareness as we know it. It is part of the brain that is the life of it. would you care for some of these cinnamon buns?  anyway, philosophically speaking; the self is just the brains motor running. The secondary part of self is our identity.  @MayCaesar

maxx

first this is my post, i am not stalking you; you came here. You also stated that babies can think. I know what proto thoughts are; sheese, psychology 101 for petes sake. They are images., ""babies before actual thinking in words, operate on associations, abstractions"". i have answered your questions many times. The actual self is the motor of the brain running, the spark that turns the brain on. instead of constantly asking me the same questions over and over, either end the debate, or ask new questions.  @Dee

Dee

@maxx


first this is my post, i am not stalking you; you came here

I came here said my piece yet you keep tagging me trying to convince me that the "sellf" which you've zero proof for somehow exists.

You admitted it cannot be located so why are you constantly stalking me trying to convince me otherwise?

. You also stated that babies can think. I know what proto thoughts are; sheese, psychology 101 for petes sake

Proto thoughts are thoughts , you claimed babies don't think did you learn that also in your  101 / psychology / pseudoscience class?


.. i have answered your questions many times.

I asked you one question regards the self and where its located you admit you  don't know yet you're back.at your usual 
constantly  stalking trying to convince me otherwise after admitting you cannot prove a self.


 The actual self is the motor of the brain running, the spark that turns the brain on.

I thought it was the soup in the bowl....LOL

OK where's it located? You're exactly like a bible thumper trying to convince people of something you admit cannot be located.


instead of constantly asking me the same questions over and over, either end the debate, or ask new question

I'm constantly asking you nothing,  the debate ended when you admitted you had zero proof for the self , yet you're constantly inventing new ridiculous analogies hoping to convince me otherwise.

Every point you made you were corrected on , you don't even understand the cogito.

It's not surprising you post up another debate and as usual have zero proof for your assertions,  that's your thing .....everytime.

maxx

i am not tagging nor stalking you. i am simply replying to your questions. that is up to you if you consider that stalking. If you consider the debate ended, fine by me. It is philosophy, not a science that requires proof. I answered all your questions, yet you simply say i did not. and yes you are constantly asking me the same questions, so i fail to see why you claim you are not. In philosophy, one can argue the self exists without proof. If you have proof that babies think, then create a debate on it. If you have proof that proto thoughts are babies thinking with words then show it. or better yet, if you have proof that protothoughts are not simply images and abstract pictures that the babies receive, then show the proof. @Dee

MayCaesar

maxx said:

I sit back into my wicker chair and add a splash of rum to my tea. I ponder for a moment. " When ever the spark that ignites the brain, either at birth, or in the womb; That spark that turns the brain on and keeps it on is the actual self. Let us assume this spark begins at birth for the argument."  for a moment i look up at the clouds floating by. " anyway, I guess metaphorically, i am trying to come across the idea, that the engine running of the brain is the self. It has no awareness as we know it. It is part of the brain that is the life of it. would you care for some of these cinnamon buns?  anyway, philosophically speaking; the self is just the brains motor running. The secondary part of self is our identity.  @MayCaesar

As much as I like the tea and especially the cinnamon buns (not a drinker though, so no rum please), I still am confused by what you mean by the "spark". The brain is a complex structure that works as it does because of what it is; for the brain to "turn off", it has to be destroyed. A brain is not like a car engine that you can turn on and off repeatedly: it is running as long as it is supplied with blood and oxygen. And consciousness is most likely an emergent phenomenon, a product of the brain work, and not some sort of independent entity.

I think that the issue here is terminology. You seem to think that the state you achieve by meditating is characterized by disappearance of thoughts, yet they never go anywhere, they just become less clearly verbalizable. It is like the difference between reading about a sunset and watching a sunset: in the first case you are having a clear internal monologue telling you what is happening, and in the second case your monologue is much more vague or even absent and you perceive what you see in more of a "stream of consciousness" way - yet in both cases the thoughts are all there. You cannot watch a sunset and make any sense out of it without thoughts popping up in your head bringing up associations between the sensory input of your eyes and the physical reality around you. In other words, without a thought of a sunset, you cannot be aware that you are watching a sunset.

Dee

@maxx

i am not tagging nor stalking you

Really you just tagged me again.

. i am simply replying to your questions

I asked one you admitted you had no evidence for the self as you cannot locate, yet here you are again.


. that is up to you if you consider that stalking

I do ,read above.

. If you consider the debate ended, fine by me

Yet here you are.....again.


. It is philosophy, not a science that requires proof

Philosophical assertions have to backed up by evidence you have zero. BTW Philosophy is a science , I've corrected you on this already.

. I answered all your questions, yet you simply say i did not

I asked one you admitted you cannot locate the self so what are you even arguing about?

. and yes you are constantly asking me the same questions, so i fail to see why you claim you are not.

I'm not , I asked one.

In philosophy, one can argue the self exists without proof

That's why no one takes you seriously.


. If you have proof that babies think, then create a debate on it

I proved it , it's a fact babies have protothoughts neuroscience agrees 

. If you have proof that proto thoughts are babies thinking with words then show it

I never said that stop lying 


. or better yet, if you have proof that protothoughts are not simply images and abstract pictures that the babies receive, then show the proof. 


I never made any such claims quit the lying and stalking please.

Watch now as Maxx continues stalking trying to convince others the fictional self somehow exists.

MayCaesar

maxx said:

i am not tagging nor stalking you. i am simply replying to your questions. that is up to you if you consider that stalking. If you consider the debate ended, fine by me. It is philosophy, not a science that requires proof. I answered all your questions, yet you simply say i did not. and yes you are constantly asking me the same questions, so i fail to see why you claim you are not. In philosophy, one can argue the self exists without proof. If you have proof that babies think, then create a debate on it. If you have proof that proto thoughts are babies thinking with words then show it. or better yet, if you have proof that protothoughts are not simply images and abstract pictures that the babies receive, then show the proof. @Dee

It seems, maxx, that you view philosophy as some sort of a fun mental exercise; as two or more people "shooting sheet" for fun. That in philosophy almost anything goes and almost any assumption can be made. Yet philosophy as a discipline is nothing like that, and it raises serious and real questions and attempts to answer them by following the same kind of rigorous methodology as any science.

As far as the highlighted passage goes, you have to define "self" to argue anything about it. That is what people here are having trouble understanding: what exactly you mean by "self". It is not a placeholder word, I assume, but something tangible. But what is it?

maxx

Dee said:

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,

nope you claimed proto thoughts are thoughts. @Dee

maxx

i have already defined what ; in a philosophical idea; as to what the self is. it is the brain running, the motor of the brain. You are too steeped in both science and also as to what your idea of self is; which is but the secondary definition; our identity. For this reason you fail to understand my analogies.  The brain functioning is the self; with out it functioning, There would be no secondary idea of self. You and dee constantly asking me where the self is ; that is like asking where our thoughts are. I was trying to keep this light hearted and stick to a philosophical point of view; based upon an exchange of idealisms; but, and i keep saying this, the brain is the self. Even without our thoughts, ideas, and memories in which you say is the self.  For instance; It is our thoughts that make up our ideas, our memories; so would you say that our thoughts are our self? Thoughts after all is what gives us our identity.  Is what our perceptions, what we sense that gets planted upon our brain, self? It seems you and dee believe it requires our thinking to have an idea of self which is circular reasoning. It is like your thoughts are telling you that our thinking is the self. I am also not speaking of some dep seated soul. The self is the brain operating, and all perceptions are just what we add on to the brain. There are many aspects to philosophy; and one of them is an exchange of ideas that are based on nothing more "what if" reasoning. Philosophy is based on theory and ideal, it is not based upon fact: therefore needs no proof!!  It is an attempt to discuss what might be true, It is not an actual science that has a forum, it is not based upon scientific reasoning; it does not follow the same procedures of science. So my post is or WAS an attempt at a light hearted philosophical discussion. @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

           MAXX STILL STALKING 


I proved it , it's a fact babies have protothoughts neuroscience agrees.

maxx

Fine, my post, my debate,  i nener asked you here, yet you claim im stalking.  You obviously don know the definition. On my post, i can reply to anyone who replies.  It is not stalking.  Stalking is if i constantly followed you around to the posts that i did not create.  Yet it  seems to mebyou are the stalker, for every post I create, you show up on. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

I'm entitled to comment on your topics and I do so as an act of charity to correct you.

You keep stalking people when the debate is over trying to convince them of your nonsensical rantings.

maxx

You don't have to reply, you done said this debate was over. At this point you are not even talking about the post. As well i suggest you look up the definition of stalking. You are famous for this,  go to someone's post and claim they are the one who is stalking 
 
 @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Please stop tagging me every half hour,lay of the stalking might work on kids not on me.

maxx

 Sure little man. Resort to your childish insults. How about not even coming to my debates, guess i coludnt stalk you then, huh. . It is my debate. You follow me to all my debates, yet you claim im stalking. If you dont like me replying to you on my debates, then stay off. I don't follow you. You follow me. Go stalk barndolt. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

Maxx back stalking .......at the least the kids are safe .....for now....

maxx

 Everyone on here knows you are the one who is stalking.  Do you wish a link to to the definition of stalking in a debate? Go earn your worthless little points elsewhere.  If you  stop following me from post to post[ which is stalking] then there is no issue.  Are you really  that unbalanced? Go to someone's debate and claim  you are being  stalked. I guess someone who is as starved for attention  as you are,  has no other choice.  It's my post, my debate,  not yours. If you don't want my replies, then stop following to  my posts. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

MAXX COMPLAINING ABOUT BEING STALKED WHILE HE TAGGED ME TO TELL.ME HE'S NOT A STALKER 
.......ROFLMAO...

maxx

it is my post . not yours. but it doesnt matter. the only one on here who ever called me a stalker is you; and you are wrong. i can not stalk someone on my own post.  you on the other hand have been called and classified as a stalker by many other debaters. you are also harassing me. One more time. if you are on here to get your worthless points, go elsewhere. at this point, like you claimed many replies ago, this debate is done and over. go elsewhere and pretend to debate. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

ARGUMENT TOPIC : MAD MAXX THE CONSTANT STALKER KEEPS TAGGING ME TO SAY HES NOT A STALKER 

I WAS NEVER CALLED A STALKER YOU ON THE OTHER HAND HAVE BEING CALLED A KIDDY FIDDLER BY 2 OTHER MEMBERS OF COURSE YOU DENIED IT BUT HERE YOU.ARE PROVING HOW YOUR TYPE OPERATES

MayCaesar

maxx said:

i have already defined what ; in a philosophical idea; as to what the self is. it is the brain running, the motor of the brain. You are too steeped in both science and also as to what your idea of self is; which is but the secondary definition; our identity. For this reason you fail to understand my analogies.  The brain functioning is the self; with out it functioning, There would be no secondary idea of self. You and dee constantly asking me where the self is ; that is like asking where our thoughts are. I was trying to keep this light hearted and stick to a philosophical point of view; based upon an exchange of idealisms; but, and i keep saying this, the brain is the self. Even without our thoughts, ideas, and memories in which you say is the self.  For instance; It is our thoughts that make up our ideas, our memories; so would you say that our thoughts are our self? Thoughts after all is what gives us our identity.  Is what our perceptions, what we sense that gets planted upon our brain, self? It seems you and dee believe it requires our thinking to have an idea of self which is circular reasoning. It is like your thoughts are telling you that our thinking is the self. I am also not speaking of some dep seated soul. The self is the brain operating, and all perceptions are just what we add on to the brain. There are many aspects to philosophy; and one of them is an exchange of ideas that are based on nothing more "what if" reasoning. Philosophy is based on theory and ideal, it is not based upon fact: therefore needs no proof!!  It is an attempt to discuss what might be true, It is not an actual science that has a forum, it is not based upon scientific reasoning; it does not follow the same procedures of science. So my post is or WAS an attempt at a light hearted philosophical discussion. @MayCaesar

You keep using metaphors, but it is not clear what they are supposed to metaphorize. "The motor of the brain" - what is that exactly? The brain is a large electro-chemical circuit with reactions happening in it and signals transmitted. There is nothing that "ignites" or "shuts down" the brain: it comes alive or does when its structure forces it to.

The question of where our thoughts are is very clearly answerable: biology has found the answer a long time ago. The question of where our "self" is is not, as long as "self" is not even properly defined. And just saying, "Oh, it is all philosophical and metaphorical", does not void your responsibility to properly define the term you are using.

Philosophy that is not rooted in facts seems to be just a fun mental exercise, completely useless for anything practical. Maybe it can still be called "philosophy", but it is of zero interest to me, honestly. It is like talking about the diplomatic relations between Orcs in Mordor and Hobbits in Shire: fun for Lord of the Ring fans, but not something of much interest from the intellectual perspective.

Now, if you are curious about my (makeshift) view on conscious, here it is. Human brain is very similar to a synthetic brain: it is just a processing plant constantly calculating something based on the inputs it receives and producing outputs that then direct our actions. Consciousness itself is just an abstraction, it does not really exist as a physical entity, and ChatGPT in this respect has the same kind of consciousness as humans do. What you seem to be getting at, that in this consciousness there exists something underneath thoughts and memories, is just the description of basic instincts and knee-jerk reactions, and that ChatGPT does not possess since it does not possess a body - but human instincts and knee-jerk reactions are completely automatic, and there it is not possible to get to them by "quieting" the mind. Instincts simply are acted up when they are triggered by sensory inputs, and you cannot "observe" them independently of them acting up. There is nothing that you can "feel" in you that would say, "I know that if you touch a hot stove with your hand, I will send a sharp pain signal to you and force you to jerk the hand away". It is just a part of your body.

maxx

Right, scientifically and biological speaking. However,  this is a philosophical post, just ideas, what if, and so on. If i wanted it to be otherwise,  i would have posted it on a different topic area.  All in all, i gather you never really engaged in philosophical games and banter, where people just trade ideas back and forth without scientific inquiry. Just  mind games so to speak. Such philosophical games are based upon conjecture and assumptions.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

You are right, I have never discussed a kingdom built by flying elephants while sipping on tea: I do not find the topic very interesting. But I have discussed a lot of topics related on certain empirical observations, and your topic seems to be one of them - only now you are arguing that it is not, are you not? You initially talked about how you practiced meditation and learned to quiet your thoughts, and something was underneath those thoughts... That something is not some philosophical fantasy given the context. Or is it? Is there nothing underneath in reality and you are just talking about the imaginary world in which there is?

maxx

I am not sure the question here. Yes i have stopped actual thinking for many minutes at a time; with the clarification that the thoughts were words, not images. It is not that hard to do. What i meant on Underneath those thoughts as you put it; every thing is still functioning. IF there is an actual self, rather than our concept of identity, then what we perceive as the function of the brain would be the self. Most people classify their identity, their ideas, their memories as their self. Now my question is, is that classification just a philosophical concept? Just an idea, something that our own thoughts simply tell us? Or is their any scientific evidence of such self as many classify it?  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

Naturally, everyone has a vision of themselves, of some consistent properties that they observe themselves exhibiting. I am not sure what there is to have beyond that. If you strip me of my thoughts and memories, there is not much of "me" left, just a shell acting on instincts. Biologically or metaphorically, I cannot see how I can be separated from my ideas, memories, identity and so on.

When I do not intentionally concentrate on my thoughts, memories and identity, they do not go anywhere, they are just put in the background. It is much like being in a room with music playing, but working on something intently and not paying any attention to the music: the music is still there, you just divert your attention elsewhere.

Dee

@maxx


Yes i have stopped actual thinking for many minutes at a time; 

No you haven't you have the illusion you have ......

Live science

But the brain never actually stops "thinking" in a broader sense. Most thoughts are actually happening in the background without us being aware of them, and "there's not really a way to turn these things off," Halassa told Live Science.

maxx

There is a split here. for scientifically and biologically speaking, no self exist; so what one considers their self is but a concept, created by our own thoughts. I have been just tossing out ideas on what philosophically is the self; yet you are saying we have a self because our thoughts state we do? For after all, we are but a bunch of neurons and cells working together.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

I think you are getting a little confused, maxx: you are saying that we have a "self" as you call it, not me. In my view, thoughts are all I have as a conscious being, some verbalizable and others not. Thoughts, in fact, are what makes us conscious/intelligent/sapient, whatever the best term is: remove thoughts - and you only have a body operating on instinct left.

maxx

no i am not confused; simply  decided to change the philosophical view and answer what you said.  one also does not think all of the time; at least not in words. You can be listening to music, or simply watching a sunset with out actual thought. I am classifying thoughts as actual words in the brain. You seem to have just said that these word, in your brain,  are in the background all of the time. .Our observations, our senses are recording all of the time, yet we do not think in words, or even images all of the time. One can look around a room with no thoughts, or images what so ever, at least for a few minutes until the thinking process kicks in.  when you say remove thoughts, i answer, that  does not erase them. Just halt them from occurring, or rather, just do not verbalize thoughts in your head. The process of being able to think is still there, you just stop the incessant rambling of thinking for a period of time. when you do, you are still capable of operating besides instinct. Nor out of just habit. Surely in your brain your thoughts do not constantly run, do they? I find it hard to believe you can not look around a room, or a street for a few minutes, without actual thoughts kicking in, and without  having to rely on instincts to do so. @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

maxx... If you are going to keep redefining words of English language, you might as well create your own language, as you proposed in another thread. "Thought" in English does not refer to the chatter in your mind, but to conscious processing of data. When someone messages, "I am thinking about you", to their lover, they do not mean that they are writing an essay about them in their mind, but that  whatever is happening in their mind is connected to that person. It can easily just be an image of their face popping up in their mind, or their voice, or the feeling of touching their hand.

Indeed, I do not narrate everything I experience. Do then by "self" you mean thoughts not accompanied by explicit words?

maxx

what i am saying is stopping thought as in words for minutes at a time. Not about processing external stimuli. Although i have halted images from floating "consciously for a bit. everything our senses observe is imprinted on our brains. Our brain is continuing running all of the time. Conscious thinking in words and images can be quieted without halting the brains functioning. Simply being aware is not a thought. Judging, reasoning, ideas, even memories are thoughts. One can halt these for a brief amount of time from entering your frontal cortex; without having to simply act upon instinct. Even our perception of external stimuli due to our senses are not thoughts, If our unconscious   mental processes are considered thoughts, one is not aware of them consciously.  I know that our brain is running all of the time but all of our mental processes are not thoughts, but mental processing. our neurons firing are not thoughts. Reasoning, deliberation, problem solving and even memories and images are part of our thought process, but not all the action of our brain running.  Consciousness: It's Less Than You Think | Time  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

I am going far out of my way accepting your arbitrary redefinitions of conventional words and ignoring of most of my points and just pushing the same points as if you were talking to yourself - and still this conversation is not going anywhere. Do you ever wonder why it happens so often to conversations between you and other people, maxx? Could it be because you view conversations not as collaborative, but as competitive? As some kind of struggle for dominance where the most persistent person wins?

If by "self" you call the function of the brain that processes data without putting it into an easily defined shape (such as words, images or sounds), then it appears extremely reductionist to me. You are just throwing away an enormous amount of aspects that make humans humans. Why are those not part of the "self"? Why is me thinking with words, "I want an ice-cream", not being an expression of the "self", but me looking at an ice-cream and salivating is? I do not understand what standard you use in order to make such a distinction.

maxx

well, from a scientific point of view, reductionism is what we are. So that would suggest that our "self" is but the collection of our brain cells, operating in conjunction with each other with out need for thoughts imprinted on the brain. From a scientific point of view, that is.  From a philosophical point of view however, there are many definitions of what the self is; each of us has their own view. Just because you do not like my point of view, doesn't mean its any less true than another philosophical view. I also fail to see what points i am not addressing; as well; as to why you believe that philosophy is based upon proof. It is not a science, follows none of the procedures as one; Philosophy is based upon the idea of what truth may be;  It is idealism. We differ on definition obviously Perhaps if you either understood my definition or at least accepted it long enough for the debate, the conversation would have gotten somewhere. The main problem here, is you are throwing science at me in a debate that was simply designed for philosophical discussion based upon idealism. I could care less in this debate about proof; it is not about science, nor is it about if i am correct or not. Do not break everything down to science; especially a philosophical debate, for that is just as much reductionism as what you say that I am doing. I am talking about ideas in this debate.  @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

If your philosophy contradicts science, then it is of little interest from the practical perspective since it has no relation to this world. Which brings me back to the earlier possibility I suggested: that your idea of philosophy might be "shooting sheet" while smoking pot and just having fun, with no interest in arriving at any sort of intellectual enlightenment. I am fine with this kind of activity, and I partake in it often myself - I just do not see how it can be called "philosophy". These are just intellectual games with no extraneous consequence. Like chess or go. Chess is not a philosophy, it is a game.

I think (although I am not sure) that it is possible to take human intellect and upload it to a computer server (although not with the current architecture, obviously). If "self" of any kind exists in the human, then it will be transferred there as well. But if thoughts do not contribute to "self", then what does? What exactly on that server would you call "self"? If we digitize the electric output of the server, which shape within that output will "self" have?

Once again, you are ignoring all of my questions, even as you say that you "fail to see what points i am not addressing". I asked you a few very direct questions in the very last comment:

• "Do you ever wonder why it happens so often to conversations between you and other people, maxx?"

• "Could it be because you view conversations not as collaborative, but as competitive? As some kind of struggle for dominance where the most persistent person wins?"

• "Why are those not part of the "self"?"

• "Why is me thinking with words, "I want an ice-cream", not being an expression of the "self", but me looking at an ice-cream and salivating is?"

Not even pretense of an attempt to address any of this. This is no bueno, maxx. You are talking to yourself, but pretending to talk to me. This is extremely disrespectful.

maxx

first off, i ask, was Socrates a scientist? no. Aristotle? no. Gallio? Yes. The difference is philosophy is about ideas. That is what this debate is about. As to why my conversations lead nowhere with others(aside  that happens with most of the posts I see on here) is for a variety of reasons. On certain debates, people will not accept the science. On other debates, i am playing games with people. Other debates i get insults or am constantly asked the same questions over and over in which many i answer, such as the ice cream cone, which i will get to. No, i am not after dominance in a debate, let alone persistent; yet in my debates i simply have the right to reply to all answers. 
The first part of your question on the ice cream analogy i have answered in many ways and many times; because "it is your thoughts" telling you that you want an ice cream cone, just as it is your thinking that decides it is the self.  Also i do not believe i said that instinct is what i consider the self; that was just you mis-understanding. I stated that the brain running , operating; is the self; just like a brand new computer. Now because i know you will say, but that is just instinctive behavior; the brain running without thoughts; ( you would be delving back into science again), I am saying (philosophically) that the brains running without regard to thoughts, images, memories, external stimuli, or instinctive behavior is the self. You will say at this point; but that makes the brain nothing more that a lump of gray matter in a veggie state; HOWEVER, ""it is still running"!! That is the part that is the actual self. Perhaps this analogy:  Take a wrist watch; the numbers are our thoughts; the hands are our instincts; now let us erase those numbers and hands, because they are just a secondary part of our self; and what do we have left? The watch still functioning, which is the actual self. @MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

A scientist is someone who does science professionally, which Socrates did not, albeit Aristotle and Gallio did. However, Socrates made an extensive use of real world examples: he had no interest in fantasy concepts not grounded in reality. One does not have to be a scientist to talk about the real world, and not being a scientist is no excuse to talk about fantasies and call it philosophy.
And you are correct, you have the right to pick and choose what to reply to and what not. But when you do not reply to most things your conversation partners say, there is very little incentive for them to keep putting effort into the conversation. Why would I expend energy and make a sophisticated argument when there is 90% probability of you just outright ignoring it?

A brain cannot "run without regard to thoughts, images, memories, external stimuli, or instinctive behavior". See, the problem here is that you keep talking about things that do not exist, and justify it by saying that they are metaphorical or philosophical. But they do not exist! How am I to make sense of something that does not exist? The "self" the way you define it does not and cannot exist in reality, therefore I have to conclude that there is no "self". In which case I am not sure what you are trying to argue here, when the object of your argument is non-existent.

Let me give you a different definition of "self" that I just came up with. "Self is that part of the brain that makes unicorns teleport from Saturn to Jupiter and back". Let us talk about this definition. Have any deep thoughts/insights?

maxx

what makes you think that the brain can not "run" independent of thoughts and instinct? The neurons still fire, the nerves still send signals, the cells still cooperate. Are you actually stating that the brain is completely dead without thoughts and instincts?When one gets to the point of circular reasoning by saying our thoughts are our self because our thoughts say so....@MayCaesar

MayCaesar

@maxx

That is basic neuroscience: thoughts are direct product of the work of the brain. Thoughts only completely go away the moment the brain shuts down. If you disagree with it, you are welcome to take your arguments to the next major conference on neuroscience.

There is no recorded evidence of human brain running without producing thoughts. It does not prove that it is impossible, but it does suggest that assuming that it is possible for every single brain and calling the entity that does it "self" is unreasonable.

Once again you are ignoring most of my questions. Why are you doing that?

Dee

@MayCaesar

Once again you are ignoring most of my questions. Why are you doing that?

Unfortunately May he does it every time as he constantly ignores most everything you say or ask so as to repeat constantly his postion which he decided from the start , he never deviates from his original postion as he's not interested in others opinions but pretends he is.

Maxx constantly says the same thing and  constantly asks the same thing by slightly adjusting the wording.

His tactics include claiming he's being misunderstood , insulted or being bullied intellectually. No good ever comes of debating with him.

MayCaesar

@Dee

I think most of us go through this phase in life when we think that we have everything figured out and everyone who disagrees with us is just wrong and will come to our way of thinking eventually - and that prompts us to dismiss their arguments/questions and just keep reiterating our own. I know I have gone through this phase myself twice, when first in my late teens I thought that "adults were all morons", and then in mid-to-late-20-s I had developed the ability to make very sophisticated arguments and enjoyed what I saw as crushing my opponents with them. @maxx is probably going through it now, and there is no shame in that. It is a part of the growing process.

Dee

@MayCaesar

***@maxx is probably going through it now, and there is no shame in that. It is a part of the growing process.***

I hope you're right it would explain everything.

maxx

you know what may. again i started this debate as nothing more than to be an exchange of what if ideas. I hate to say this, however i believe not only that you no longer have the ability to think outside of the box, but also you lost or no longer have imagination; you simply can not step away from your idea of " well that is not reality view. You could walk out into the rain and begin a scientific analysis of the weather. If someone asked you to imagine the drops of rain falling in color; you would simply say that is not reality. I have a couple of hard jobs, and I like to relax. yes i play chess, but I also play many board games that do not require skill. I read, i enjoy the older classics but i also enjoy cheap westerns and mysteries; and if i feel like it i might go read peter rabbit. In other words, you are totally devoid of imagination. I am just as much an adult as you are, if not more, for being an adult does not mean casting aside to wonder without science butting in; it also does not mean being stuck in a system of strict standards, nor relying on cheap insults. You seem to think "being grown up" is nothing more than a set of certain idea that you should not deviate from. Why should I fit into your standards of how an adult should act? I help manage the lakes and parks and I teach mma on the week ends. So when i relax, i enjoy humor; and i like to go to the club and we discuss  things like what if this was changed in the world; or simple word play. Aside from your lack of imagination and the inability to think outside of the box, i am beginning to think you have little humor. This is a post of what if; and i did not ask science to start yelling for proof. I feel sorry for you, for you are stuck in a world totally lacking of much save for your view of reality. I see this on all of your replies on all of these posts. I debate for the heck of it; regardless if i am right or wrong. However i do not appreciate insults or people yelling for proof when the debate requires none; nor when i do give proof on other debates; it is ignored. I swear if i made a post on the game monopoly, you would start talking on the economics of it and dee would say how childish, do you enjoy playing with the kiddies/ Both of you simply need to chill out!  @MayCaesar

Dee

@maxx

. 

Why are you getting so annoyed maxx you're the one saying definitely what the"I" is ...... The actual "I: is simply an observer, it utilizes no action on its own. it is simply there. Now this is just a off spring of a philosophical idea and i am sure many some will not understand the gist of what i am saying; however those who do, i am curious on what you think of the idea. ........

And you ask ....what do you think of the idea?  So you asked for May's thoughts and mine yet fly into continuous rages that others hold different views?

. I swear if i made a post on the game monopoly, you would start talking on the economics of it and dee would say how childish, do you enjoy playing with the kiddies/ Both of you simply need to chill out! @MayCaesar

I think i'm fairly chilled and  May is also, you obviously not being entirely sincere when you say .... i started this debate as nothing more than to be an exchange of what if ideas.

Really? Yet I told you my view yet you kept saying I was wrong you were right and I as I keep telling you I'm entitled to my view on the topic just as you are yours.

You went   the very  same on the psychology debate where I gave my reasons for not seeing it as a true science in my opinion but that wasn't good enough as you constantly posted up content telling me you were right and I was wrong.

It seems in every debate you pretend you want a conversation until the moment one disagrees with you and you're doing it again here, whys that?

maxx

your ideas? no you did not, you just kept asking the same questions over and over, no matter how many times i answered. I also never said, dee you are wrong. I can not even ask you a question without you turning it around and  just saying i am wrong. You realize how annoying that is? is that why you are on this site. Then you started in on me saying i am stalking you on my own topic. I kept explaining that this topic is not about proof yet you and may just kept yelling for proof. I explained it is not about science; yet what do i get?  The only view i read of yours that there is no self, but then you changed that view. Fine. So here is the question in which you do not answer; philosophically speaking what is the self? you answer, our thoughts, idea and memories. i reply; do we not have a self without those thoughts; because it is only our thoughts that state we are the self. If you say no, then I ask why nopt? @Dee

Dee

@maxx


your ideas? no you did not, you just kept asking the same questions over and over, no matter how many times i answered.

You didn't answer you gave 7 or 8 analogies that came nowhere to addressing the one question I asked , I also predicted you would fly into a rage , you did so more or less straight away.


 I also never said, dee you are wrong. I can not even ask you a question without you turning it around and  just saying i am wrong. You realize how annoying that is? is that why you are on this site. Then you started in on me saying i am stalking you on my own topic. I kept explaining that this topic is not about proof yet you and may just kept yelling for proof.

No one " yelled for proof" you were asked to demonstrate the veracity of your claims you cannot do so it's just you opinion which I'm fine with you can believe as many things as you want without proof but please stop trying to bully others to do likewise.


. I explained it is not about science; yet what do i get?  The only view i read of yours that there is no self, but then you changed that view. Fine

I never deviated from that view, you're making stuff up now. So Neuroscience is not interested?

. So here is the question in which you do not answer; philosophically speaking what is the self?

There is not self just a bundle of memories,  dreams , thoughts , reflections in which no constant can be found.

 you answer, our thoughts, idea and memories

I never claimed there was a " self" stop attributing things to me I never said.

. i reply; do we not have a self without those thoughts;

That doesn't explain what the " self " is.

 because it is only our thoughts that state we are the self.

So Anger is your "self"? Love? Hate? What is the "I" you keep referring to? Where is it located?


 If you say no, then I ask why nopt

What does that even mean 



My very first point  and still remains unchallenged.

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?

MayCaesar

maxx said:

you know what may. again i started this debate as nothing more than to be an exchange of what if ideas. I hate to say this, however i believe not only that you no longer have the ability to think outside of the box, but also you lost or no longer have imagination; you simply can not step away from your idea of " well that is not reality view. You could walk out into the rain and begin a scientific analysis of the weather. If someone asked you to imagine the drops of rain falling in color; you would simply say that is not reality. I have a couple of hard jobs, and I like to relax. yes i play chess, but I also play many board games that do not require skill. I read, i enjoy the older classics but i also enjoy cheap westerns and mysteries; and if i feel like it i might go read peter rabbit. In other words, you are totally devoid of imagination. I am just as much an adult as you are, if not more, for being an adult does not mean casting aside to wonder without science butting in; it also does not mean being stuck in a system of strict standards, nor relying on cheap insults. You seem to think "being grown up" is nothing more than a set of certain idea that you should not deviate from. Why should I fit into your standards of how an adult should act? I help manage the lakes and parks and I teach mma on the week ends. So when i relax, i enjoy humor; and i like to go to the club and we discuss  things like what if this was changed in the world; or simple word play. Aside from your lack of imagination and the inability to think outside of the box, i am beginning to think you have little humor. This is a post of what if; and i did not ask science to start yelling for proof. I feel sorry for you, for you are stuck in a world totally lacking of much save for your view of reality. I see this on all of your replies on all of these posts. I debate for the heck of it; regardless if i am right or wrong. However i do not appreciate insults or people yelling for proof when the debate requires none; nor when i do give proof on other debates; it is ignored. I swear if i made a post on the game monopoly, you would start talking on the economics of it and dee would say how childish, do you enjoy playing with the kiddies/ Both of you simply need to chill out!  @MayCaesar

Not at all: I love a good fantasy and love to talk about it. And if your premise was, "In the fictional Universe of my creation there is this entity called 'self' and I would like to discuss it", then I would be all for it! The problem is that you mix up fantasy with reality, and when I try to draw a line between the two and determine which we are talking about, you protest.
Just as here, you said, "you are totally devoid of imagination". Is it a fantasy or reality statement? Do you really think that there is a human being on Earth that is literally "totally devoid of imagination"? What if I tell you that I daydream all the time - will you think it a lie?
Imagination has its place, but when talking about real concepts, it has to be constrained by reality. You may have heard the phrase, "Your mind should be open, but not so open that the brain falls out" - perfectly applicable here.

You are welcome to point out a single instance where I sent "cheap insults" your way. Once again, you seem to be fantasizing. And I never mentioned anything about "growing up", just about going through different phases of life - and I never said that those phases of life have to come at certain ages. I only said at what ages they came to me, and I am not representative of the entire human population. I never talked about you being or not being an adult.

Funny you mentioned talking about games, for I just did a collab a while ago with my chess streamer friend and 90% of the stream was us joking around and laughing. Do not make strong assumptions about strangers, maxx, just because something they said and you misread happened to upset you.

maxx

Typical. you sked for proof and i could quote you, but what is the use; as well just in your last reply, you told me to prove it; so no matter how many times i tell you that this debate topic is not about proof, you keep asking for some. Nice. You ask how the I in consciousness is not any of our thoughts/ Because it is your thoughts just saying so. Kind of redundant to say my thoughts are my self because my thoughts tell me so. Pure circular reasoning. You and may both claimed i am angry or fly into rages in my replies, but you know what? One can not assume someone's state of emotion based upon written content. I was simply being sarcastic. Oh and before you jump all over that; don't bother; I know what i was, and it was sarcasm. What gets me is here you are asking me to prove my idea that our thoughts are not the self when you agree with it. @Dee

Dee

@maxx

MAXX AS USUAL INVENTS ARGUMENTS HIS OPPONENTS NEVER MADE AND TOTALLY IGNORES WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAID IN FAVOUR OF ACTUALLY ARGUING WITH HIS OWN REINTERPRETATION OF WHAT HE KNOWS WASNT SAID.

Typical. you sked for proof and i could quote you, but what is the use; as well just in your last reply, you told me to prove it; so no matter how many times i tell you that this debate topic is not about proof, you keep asking for some.

I asked you what the "i "you keep referring to is and you keep referring to self but don't know what that is , so at last you admit you don't know , so what are you even arguing about?

 Nice. You ask how the I in consciousness is not any of our thoughts/ Because it is your thoughts just saying so

I agree there's no self well done Maxx you've caught up 



Kind of redundant to say my thoughts are my self because my thoughts tell me so.

But I never said that , I don't believe in a self.

 Pure circular reasoning.

But you' re now fabricating stuff I never said..... I clearly stated .....There is not self just a bundle of memories,  dreams , thoughts , reflections in which no constant can be found.

You and may both claimed i am angry or fly into rages in my replies, but you know what?

Yes I claimed that you seem to be constantly in a rage if people hold different opinions.

 One can not assume someone's state of emotion based upon written content

One can and I do it seems like you get very annoyed at people disagreeing with you of course you will deny it.


.I was simply being sarcastic.

Nice.

 Oh and before you jump all over that; don't bother; I know what i was, and it was sarcasm

Well done you at least its different to your usual rages.

. What gets me is here you are asking me to prove my idea that our thoughts are not the self when you agree with it

I dont don't believe in a self and I've said from the start you cannof prove you have a "self" yet youre still attempting to convert others by constpreaching the same old tripe  .........There is not self just a bundle of memories,  dreams , thoughts , reflections in which no constant can be found.