The Self

AnyOldIron

AnyOldIron

Atheist Missionary
What constitutes the self?

Descartes once famously said 'cogito ergo sum', 'I think therefore I am'.

He was operating under the impression that the mind and body are two seperate entities, the body material, the mind transcendental. This notion comes from the pre-Newtonian perspective of the universe, that there are four elements on Earth, fire, water, air and earth, each with its naturally set place (Earth, then above that water, then above that fire and aboe that air). Above the earth is the heavenly bodies, made of a non-material transcendental element. This perspective states that the reason earth falls down, and fire rises, is because these elements always return to their natural position. He thought the mind (or soul) to be made from the non-material transcendental element, and thus when the body dies and returns to its natural place (the earth) whilst the soul rises up to its natural place in the heavenly bodies.

Newton obviously decimated this notion.

So today, people might take Decartes' notion and state that it is the brain, and its mechanisms, that constitute the self.

But look at it this way. The heart, the lungs, the kidneys are all organs with a specific role to fulfil, but if they are transplanted the self doesn't change. The brain too is an organ with a specific role. Why is it any different from other organs with roles?

And it cannot be that the whole constitutes the self, because the self doesn't change if I remove a limb.

Maybe it is a flaw with the concept of the self itself, a linguistic cul-de-sac?

Any thoughts?
 
I don't think that he worked on that separation, I think you extrapolate it from his statement, but that he was speaking to the question. "What proof do I have that even I exist?" The answer was to continue in the reality that is known. "I have these thoughts, therefore I must work with what evidence that I have."

Consistently, even in Sci-Fi writing you can read an idea that we are just the extrapolation of another's thought, that reality is not as we actually understand it. Saying, "I think therefore I am" doesn't necessarily mean he was working with the separation of self idea.
 
I don't think that he worked on that separation, I think you extrapolate it from his statement, but that he was speaking to the question. "What proof do I have that even I exist?" The answer was to continue in the reality that is known. "I have these thoughts, therefore I must work with what evidence that I have."

Well, technically it was that because he was doubting the nature of existence, the doubt itself existed and thus cogito ergo sum, but yes, you are right the general topic was the possibility of the acquisition of absolute knowledge, (though he should have investigated a priori analytics). But in Meditations, a conclusion he draws is that because he doubt, and thus thinks, the I to which we refer when discussing the self is that thinking being.

Consistently, even in Sci-Fi writing you can read an idea that we are just the extrapolation of another's thought, that reality is not as we actually understand it. Saying, "I think therefore I am" doesn't necessarily mean he was working with the separation of self idea.

No he didn't draw that conclusion of mind / body dualism from his search for absolute knowledge, I wrote that as a background into Cartesian thinking for those who might not be as genned up as yourself. I am taking from Meditations simply the conclusion that Descartes came to that he knew I existed as a thinking entity.

Descartes notion that is the mind that constitutes the self comes from the Aristotelian idea of the body being 'of earth' and thus a lower 'grade' than the mind or soul, which is of the transcendental 'heavenly' element.

Any ideas yourself, Damo, on the nature of what the self constitutes?
 
Hey anyold, if self is just a linguistic cul-de-sac, does that make human rights illegitimate, since our selves are an illusion? Just wondering.

I don't thing illegitimate is the word you are looking for. Maybe invalid.

But it could be argued that as existence is innately amoral, and morality a human invention, then all moral principles such as rights are artificial constructs, yes.

But that doesn't make them invalid. We can accept that existence is innately amoral and that morality is a human construct and still operate them under that understanding.

As for whether the self being a linguistic cul-de-sac means that rights are invalid, I wouldn't say that it automatically follows. It is the notion of the self, the understanding of the self that could be the linguistic problem, not the actual self itself.

Same scenerio as above, we can still operate from this position. Hope that clears it up.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Hey anyold, if self is just a linguistic cul-de-sac, does that make human rights illegitimate, since our selves are an illusion? Just wondering.

I don't thing illegitimate is the word you are looking for. Maybe invalid.

But it could be argued that as existence is innately amoral, and morality a human invention, then all moral principles such as rights are artificial constructs, yes.

But that doesn't make them invalid. We can accept that existence is innately amoral and that morality is a human construct and still operate them under that understanding.

As for whether the self being a linguistic cul-de-sac means that rights are invalid, I wouldn't say that it automatically follows. It is the notion of the self, the understanding of the self that could be the linguistic problem, not the actual self itself.

Same scenerio as above, we can still operate from this position. Hope that clears it up.
Click to expand...

A. Look stuff up before you act like a pompous ass
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegitimate
5. Logic. not in accordance with the principles of valid inference.

B. The rest of your answer pleases me. I was just checking to see if your wordplay was leading to repeal of human rights, as does your word play with human and human being.
 
I was just checking to see if your wordplay was leading to repeal of human rights, as does your word play with human and human being.

Repeal of human rights?

What human rights do you think I am trying to repeal? ha ha ha! If I wanted to repeal any rights, I would present reasoned arguments for repealing them, not 'wordplay'. It seems that whenever you are struggling with a concept, you claim it is wordplay. Reminds me of an old character on these boards, Dixie...

But I have no interest in repealing any rights, no matter if I consider them artificial constructs. Try to understand that I debate on here as an intellectual exercise, for the sake of argument, and stop being such an arse.

Your notion that there is some global elite on these boards who are trying to undermine humanity a la 1984 is laughable, a mixture of paranoia and anti-intellectualism.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I was just checking to see if your wordplay was leading to repeal of human rights, as does your word play with human and human being.

Repeal of human rights?

What human rights do you think I am trying to repeal? ha ha ha! If I wanted to repeal any rights, I would present reasoned arguments for repealing them, not 'wordplay'. It seems that whenever you are struggling with a concept, you claim it is wordplay. Reminds me of an old character on these boards, Dixie...

But I have no interest in repealing any rights, no matter if I consider them artificial constructs. Try to understand that I debate on here as an intellectual exercise, for the sake of argument, and stop being such an arse.

Your notion that there is some global elite on these boards who are trying to undermine humanity a la 1984 is laughable, a mixture of paranoia and anti-intellectualism.
Click to expand...


You seek to deny the right of life to in utero humans. And you don't argue it directly. You attack their very humanity. You do exactly as I described. and there is a global elite trying to undermine humanity, and some of you on this board, namely you, but including others, enact their agenda, knowingly or not, with your absurd and dishonet language manipulations.
 
You seek to deny the right of life to in utero humans. And you don't argue it directly. You attack their very humanity. You do exactly as I described. and there is a global elite trying to undermine humanity, and some of you on this board, namely you, but including others, enact their agenda, knowingly or not, with your absurd and dishonet language manipulations.

You're just a paranoid wacko. I'm going back to talking to adults now. Have fun in your log cabin...
 
AnyOldIron said:
You seek to deny the right of life to in utero humans. And you don't argue it directly. You attack their very humanity. You do exactly as I described. and there is a global elite trying to undermine humanity, and some of you on this board, namely you, but including others, enact their agenda, knowingly or not, with your absurd and dishonet language manipulations.

You're just a paranoid wacko. I'm going back to talking to adults now. Have fun in your log cabin...
Click to expand...


You have no argument, and have resorted to namecalling. You lose.
 
It's a conundrum and I don't claim to hold the answer. Mind-body dualism in general strikes me as dangerously easy: it's a lazy way out of the problem. Yet it's so pervasive because it is such a natural conclusion based on our experience. From any individual's perspective, there clearly is a Self that exists, at least in some sense. There is continuity through one's life. More than that, the Self seems to survive amputation of major organs, even the complete incapacitation of the body.

Mysticism aside, I think that the self is, basically, software. It is in some sense differentiated from the brain's hardware but cannot exist independently from it. The self exists only while the software is running, in a sense.
 
"Mysticism aside, I think that the self is, basically, software. It is in some sense differentiated from the brain's hardware but cannot exist independently from it. The self exists only while the software is running, in a sense."

I fully aree Ornot, we are bio computers and our self is the result of our genetics and experiences in life. Bio chemical hardware and software.
 
I would say the self is the continuation of the stream of consciousness. However I started a thread a little bit back to challenge whether the stream of consciousness being terminated is the destruction of self.

The idea of self is a construct that will only matter to the holder of that self identity. If we deconstruct a person's brain into energy store the organizational data and than a millisecond later reconstitute it no one else would perceive that any change has occured in the individual. However I would say that that person ceased to exist and a new person was created even though the newly created person would have all the memories of the old and could never perceive they were a copy.

I would not say the self is the brain, or mind. They are material objects and can be replicated perfectly. Thus the self is not a material object but rather a state of an object.

Ultimately this is arbitrary to all but the individual who undergoes such change. In the scientific sense the destruction of self has no meaning as all matter constantly changes. However human being value their individual identity and attach it to their lives. It would make many feel uncomfortable to know that they can be destroyed without even knowing simply buy the changing quantum state in the matter of their minds. I know it bothers me.
 
And you don't understand either AHZ , but have virtually no humility about it.
A common way to make an ass out of ones self.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top