We know from people who have had surgery for epilepsy that if you sever the left and right hemispheres both will have their own awareness and will no longer tell the other side what that awareness is. If you ask one side a question and the other side the same question, each side will give different answers and different justifications for their answers. This demonstrates that identity is much more complex than we think and we're not just one thing. It also helps us understand that so much of what we do in life isn't in our control. We think we have agency and we're making logical decisions but if one side of our brains sees things one way and the other side a different way but we think we have just one answer, well then which one of us did we listen to if each side has its own identity (and some think there are many more than two identities in us that form one but all sorts of competing identities). When we truly understand ourselves, it makes it easy to look at others who make decisions that don't make sense to us and realize that almost nothing makes sense and we're all sort of lucky or not lucky to get what we get in life based on what occurs to us and how the recognition of those occurrences manifest in reality. This is one of many reasons why if you're lucky to recognize what you want and you know how to get it, you shouldn't wait for anyone else to recognize it too and we should all share our perspectives as best we can so that each of us can recognize as much as possible and then hopefully conduct our lives to our benefits since much is up to random chance of awareness.
Every moment of our life has many elements. Right now, RLK, Simon Blackburn, my computer, the glass of water to my right, the voice of my wife calling, "me," etc. Each element is a subset and the collection is infinite at every moment. So my life is a collection of infinite sets. If I am shown any moment of my adult life, I will recognize me and not-me in the set that encompasses the moment. Since I feel confident I am able to do that, then I am the axiom of choice of my life's collection of moments. Persistence of self is not rooted in biology, but in mathematics. Ask Richard Borcherds.
The self could be analogous to a picture on a flash drive. Using the terms of the discussion the picture is due to the way the electrons are organized, it's not the electrons themselves; it's not a thing, exactly the same picture could be copied and persist on more drives, analogous to the brain - splitting idea producing more selves. If you started altering the 0's and 1's randomly the picture would smoothly fade into white noise, there'd be no sudden cut-off point. This would be analogous to Robert's question "How much could I lose and still be me?". In reverse, if you started altering the 0's and 1's in a particular way you could gradually get a completely different picture, ie the body would host a totally different self. If by chance in an eternal universe the same configuration of atoms came together we'd suddenly be aware of being us again so we could indeed have an eternal soul - all the better that souls aren't 'things' that can deteriorate and die. This must surely be the ultimate topic and all the critical points have been covered extremely well by both parties.
He says, "under enough change we don't have the same person" Alzheimer's could destroy all memory about your life. You could forget your name, family, friends,job, etc. etc. but things related to me don't make me a person. It is knowing that "I be" or "am" that makes me a person.
🧐Love this subject and dialogue , Im frequently thinking and dwelling on the and,if, and buts , my intuition leans two entities Material Body, Spiritual Soul any way love pondering the subject, 🤔👀👍
One notion I hear repeated is the problem. The problem of this or that aspect, the problem of resolving the problem. The "problem" id a mental construct you think must be resolved. It blinds you to what is and hence you will always have a problem.
It’s real simple. The self is just like a software operating system. An arrangement of coding that’s getting constant updates but based on a fundamental structuring organization. It remains Windows, not Mac OS, and vice versa. That’s its identity.
@@deanodebo Switches are like extremely primitive neuronal connections, obviously. The brain's capability is a million light years ahead of a modern computer, but the metaphor works. No, a computer is not conscious. They might be in the future. Consciousness, as the term is generally used, requires a sense of self.
@@callmeishmael3031 why - if a switch, a collection of switches, or even a modern computer is not conscious - why would they be in the future? Do you think some threshold of an arbitrary collection of switches magically becomes conscious?
@@deanodebo The threshold is when it attains a sense of self. It's not even known how that is attained in the brain. My personal definition of consciousness is everything the central nervous system is doing. What the common use of the term consciousness refers to just the small part of consciousness that is engaged with the sense of self, how the self is fed by the surface perceptions and the interior information like memory of that system, and the self's operating GUI with reality. In the common use, you can say thing like, he was knocked unconscious. That's not true, at all. The body remains very conscious. It is just a state where the sense of self is not operating. So yes, some computers are conscious like a paramecium is conscious. There's nothing supernatural about the human self's GUI that enables the body to function in its environment. Your cat has a sense of self and its own brand of GUI which is in many ways different from a human's. A sleeping cat's body has consciousness just like a sleeping human's body has consciousness. There's no such thing as a living unconscious organism. When we refer to the unconscious, we're actually just refering to the part of consciousness that is not engaged by the sense of self.
The persistence of the self is an experience but the mind proves (?) that it is an illusion? So our experience of time, of self and of all our experiences in our lives are all an illusion? And of course the best illusion of all is to believe that the mind alone is able to give the right answers.
Godlessness can lead to mental illness where it becomes common for Materialists to say opposite things both sides of their mouths... pitiful souls who need help...
@@evaadam3635 There's no need to capitalize "materialists". Contrary to what you may think, we don't worship matter, and certainly not the way the religious worship God.
@@Hello_there-7pt ..let us not forget that they are still children of our Loving GOD even though they think they are just material animal bodies.... and I am not worshipping them... I am just trying to have their full attention because capital letters is easily noticeable, aside from using it as a form of respect...
How do we define ourselves? Deep down, we are not really any different from anyone else. If one were to strip oneself of all attributes that defines who or what we are, then I guess what remains is our cold, hard consciousness. But in so doing, the removal of all attributes may simply leave one devoid of having any real substance.
Mental and physical attributes belong to the physical body that can not be known without Awareness, or what many define as Consciousness, which is a non-physical supernatural entity that I believe is a free split of the Holy Spirit...
@@SillyHumonswithout Awareness, no one can know your devoid theory to understand its relevance or irrelevance.. ..we human faithfuls can understand, clueless robots can not...
How definies personality if consciousness NOT figure out self? Neuroscience NOT figure It out so far. Self is nil evidence in neuroscience proceendings.
I think the self is the first person perspective, so if you split the brain and created two physical beings there would be two separate first person perspectives that wouldn't be the same as the original unified one. I think continuation of the self requires memory, self-awareness and continuation of your first person perspective. I think if God exists as a genuine creator of our reality, He should be able to continue a person's first person perspective even in a different form. If you want to argue God simply doesn't exist is a different line of argument.
We change from moment to moment. In that continuum, my core sense of self refuses to be ordered around by my hair or by my microbiome, regardless of how conscious and intelligent those strands and organisms claim to be.
Self-reflection is a form of domesticated programming, shaped by a dominant species in ancient times through manipulation of genes like BAZ1B, OXTR, MAOA, and SLC6A4 to enhance compliance, sociability, and emotional regulation. These genes also shaped size, strength, intelligence, and leadership, optimizing individuals for societal roles. As domestication progressed, the caloric ROI shifted from apex predator efficiency (1:100) to a near 1:1 ratio, with all the lost ROI redirected toward GDP. Today, dominant haplogroups or societies control this output, funneling reduced energy returns into their economic and social dominance.
..your true being is not your physical body but your free aware immortal soul who is not a product of domestication but a free split of the Holy Dpirit
@@evaadam3635 I agree with this assessment, but it's very thin what can be construed as non-domesticated feeling, thinking, creating, leading (within the domesticated pens), educating, researching, philosophizing all to enhance someone's GDP....
@@wbrx76 ...your true self which is your soul is the independent Subject that perceives whatever the physical body conveys, be it emotions, pain or pleasure, thoughts or ideas (domesticated or not) that you are free to believe or reject, etc...
@@evaadam3635 Is not the punishment for anything non-GDP producing is too high a cost? It's at least 2 layers deep (1) apex predator caloric ROI (regain of function) for real freedom --can't be accomplished with NPV I don't think as currencies are "Fire Water", only then (2) select from non-domesticated ( primal ) concepts of good thoughts, feelings, behaviors, creations.... dews from heaven.
@@wbrx76 ..losing your soul is too high a cost than losing GDP.... so, RTYOH is your soul's main purpose why you are here, not ROI... because once your soul is lost, it has no more NPV ... ...again, our lost souls were released from a cold dark emptiness (hell) to have dominion over sea and land on earth for our physical survival while we search for the meaning of our lives to hopefuly find faith in a loving GOD for our salvation... ..the reason is because we lost our Original HOME/Heaven for losing faith in God's LOVE due to greed, so, only by regaining our faith that we can all return HOME.. ... if we fail, our souls will return to emptiness (hell)..
Ever hear the story of what happened to the young Buddhist monk who didn't run away from a rampaging elephant because all is illusion? The senior monk lectured what was left of him that although he taught him that, in this reality, you better act like rampaging elephants aren't illusions. (The video games you play actually are an illusion, I bet you wouldn't run around in actual combat like you do in a first person shooter - because you know that would be for real.) Or like the argument I got in with a Hindu believed all was an illusion, and also believed in reincarnation. (He got mad when I asked him - if we were illusions, who was getting reincarnated?) I'll believe you when you lose your life savings and it doesn't matter to you because all is an illusion.
@@cultist100 this is where use of language comes into play. Your illusion and zenzen's illusion, aren't quite the same. Your story is about a monk thinking the elephant will just pass through him or something, like it isn't there, despite the senses telling otherwise. The "identitiy of the self is an illusion" is not about that, since we also perceive this identity - it is there. What the illusion part means is that it is a construct of the brain, as opposed to being an entity existing in the universe independent of the brain which perceives it. In other words, you THINK you have a self, because the brain (your only access into reality) tells you. A similar concept would be color. Is color something real, or is color merely an interpretation of something else done by the brain. You see there is a self, the same way you see there are colors. It's a trick of the brain.
@@k0v4c One could easily argue colors are objectively real and a sense of self is a property of the brain. Merely redefining it as a "trick" doesn't make it go away.
A sense of "self" in no way purely supports religious ideas of a "soul". The soul that materialism reacted against was that of an immortal, immaterial "substance" capable of persisting without the body. But the mental, i.e. the "self", is merely a product of the physical. So I don't see any reason to dismiss it offhand for philosophical reasons.
@@deanodebo The claim is the mental is a product of the physical, brain activity is reducible to neuronal processes. That's the only truly scientific position one can take.
@@deanodebo The claim is the mental is a product of the physical, psychology is reducible to brain activity. That's the only truly scientific position one can take.
We are made of particles, that have been around since the big bang. Perhaps a certain configuration is a Primary Key, which is associated with a unique ID. Particles can be added or removed from the key but the Key / ID unity remains.
I love your comment. Enjoyed it. There is also a scientific understanding often discussed that every drop of water we drink would have been part of some body cell.
@@deanodebo Faith is belief without proof. The Big Bang theory is the expanding universe, extrapolated backwards, it requires logical deduction and some extreme experimental observations.
The worst thing you can say to someone you haven't seen lately is "You haven't changed a bit". My self is a constant act and action of construction. I must work on memory to hold myself together. Selfhood is a fragile mirror that deteriorates every day. I get up in the morning and put on a new face.
Reflection isn't common. Most individuals solidify their behaviors and lines-of-thinking by 18-24 years of age, and from then onward, they'll never think outside of their ways again. It is what it is, and it's this way by design. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
..memories of all what you have done are never lost even if your physical brain deteriorates... copies are stored in Heaven that you may see when its time for you to pass away...
If I only "think" I have a self, but that is an illusion- who is sitting here typing and thinking I have a self? Lets be real, nobody blabbing about how "we" aren't real, or colors don't objectively exist, or what we perceive as our surroundings don't objectively exist outside our neurons - actually acts that way.- Trust how people act, not what they say. People who actually, truly are under that impression and act accordingly are in jail or mental institutions. - "Your honor you (an illusion) only THINK I (an illusion)committed that despicable criminal act (an illusion) but nothing outside our brains is anything more than an illusion, and in fact what is going on inside our heads is an illusion. That is pretty much the definition of the insanity defense,
well, if that's what they want to say they should say that, because they didn't. And I have actually no idea what you said means. What is the difference between being aware and self aware anyway? Sounds like a tautology to me. "To be in pain is to have your self be in pain." How can you be aware but not self aware? @@williamburts3114
@@lefthookouchmcarm4520 I'm just kinda thinking that if the self is an illusion, consciousness is an illusion, free will doesn't exist, do you deny critical thinking skills and decision making? For example, if free will doesn't exist how do we have decision making ability? Much less if consciousness and the self are just illusions. Or is my non-existent self not able to think critically or make decisions? Then I'm just Wojak the npc meme (a non playing video character) incapable of independent action based on decision making. But- Sam Harris in his book "Free Will Doesn't Exist" starts with a true crime story of pretty much the worst thing two guys can do do an underage person. Then he basically says that if you have a big brain like him you understand they had no free will to do otherwise. But when the jounalist Ezra Klein called him a racist for what he said on a Bill Mahers show to Ben Afflek, Sam whines Ezra should "know better." So if 2 guys do that crime ( I won't even say what it was) to an underage person, no free will. But call HIM a name and suddenly people have free will and should know better. Like free will sprung into existence when somebody does something rotten TO HIM. I'm convinced these "experts" are just spouting their pre-existing suppositions, and are very, very sloppy about defining terms. And I suspect not a single one of them would stipulate to a " I have no free will" legal defense if a criminal defendant did anything horrible to them or their family. But like- if humans have no free will, we can't have intent or "mens rea" to commit a crime. I mean, if we would just be just bowling balls with thumbs, rolling down the lane and life per gravity and friction, no free will no consciousness no self (those are just illusions) Anyway if someone can square the "no free will, consciousness and the self are illusions" with critical thinking and decision making for me I would appreciate it.
@@cultist100 I believe in the argument that says if these "experts" like Sam Harris don't believe in free will, why do they try so hard to convince you that free will doesn't exist? As soon as you try to convince someone to believe in your point of view you do so because you know that they have the free will to not believe in your position.
Lots of academics outing themselves as NPCs these day 😏 As everything we experience is merely an interpretation of eletrochemical signals, what part of existance exactly, is the illusion ? Also, why am I listening to self professed illusions ?
Unbeknownst to many people the brain is connected to an immaterial conscious personality known as the "soul" that is supremely elemental in nature -- absolutely impartite -- and therefore immutable. It's this entity called soul that is responsible for the retention of personal identity over time in the midst of the mutable configurations (composites of particles) of the material body.
Perhaps your personal identity whilst living in this world is your ego. Why would your soul be responsible for maintaining its allegiance to your ego? They seem to be polar opposites if one is involved with the material Universe and the other is not. I would describe the soul and ego as different aspects of the mind. The ego being your lower mind and the soul is your higher mind. I can also describe it as a split in the mind where the lower and higher mind are not fully comprehesible to each other or aren't even fully aware of the other aspect. The ego being the dominant part of the mind.
He's just illustrating how people commonly think about these things. There's a plenty of research that shows people think very differently about these issues with respect to other people, compared to with respect to themselves.
As Kuhn worries that he isn't his same self every 7 years or so, there us another aspect of his existence that involve his ancestors resurfacing in his self. At times I think of myself in my ancestor's flesh. Some people can prove this transmigration, only belief stand in between.
Reflection is both key and lock. Unfortunately, most individuals lack the skills and resources to actually attempt that technique. However, it is this way BY DESIGN; if you cannot Reflect, you were probably never meant to do so. 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
"Understanding Personal Identity?" It is not your physical human body, enslaved or driven by natural laws, that defines your true personal identity.. It is your Freedom to BELIEVE anything for good or bad reason that exposes the fact that your WILL is NOT NATURAL... ..this truth about the existence of your "Freedom to Choose What to BELIEVE", which can not be a property of physical matter, defines your true personal identity as SUPERNATURAL which I believe is your free aware immortal soul who is a free split of the Holy Spirit... ..the existence of our Supernatural Free Will is the reason why we are accountable for the consequences of the free choices we make... ..it is also the reason why the only rational choice of belief to explain our origin is the belief in the existence of a Supernatural SOURCE...
The persistence of the person is there because the persistence of the subjective and objective is there, and that is something that is not subject to change.
@@aditya.sedhai ...I was referring to the free observing non-physical Subject that fits the defiinition or our independent soul who is aware of the object that is the human physical body.... the human physical body can not be the Independent Subject...
@@evaadam3635 Right, the subjective and objective are distinct from each other and that is something that is not subject to change. You cannot understand what it is like to be a human being by examining the human body because that is a subjective truth. And it is this persistence of the subjective existing alongside with the objective while at the same time being distinct from the objective that gives awareness a personal identity.
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5
You perform, and then, you d13. That is the baseline existence. Only through Reflection could anyone hope to recognize the endless circuit and attempt to conspire against it (or to at least understand that helical loop). 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ "Before I start, I must see my end. Destination known, my mind's journey now begins. Upon my chariot, heart and soul's fate revealed. In time, all points converge; hope's strength, resteeled. But to earn final peace at the universe's endless refrain, we must see all in nothingness... before we start again." 🐲✨🐲✨🐲✨ --Diamond Dragons (series)
For some reason, which I know quite well, people don't want to understand the deeper meaning of the lexicon that both Metaphysics/Philosophia and religion share. For God, Soul, Essence, Being, Nature, theophany, and all such, are not religous terms, as if these were properties of religion, for they are not. These are Universal meanings(profound) and principles. These principles have been acknowledged from everything we understand of nature(physics) - we know of the unknown from that which is known, for nothing transient and ephemeral are principle. There's methods the great minds have understood, that my contemporaries today are to childish to even grasp let alone assimilate. We do better understand the principle that is Harmony, that which is immaterial and unseen in itself, by acknowledging the organization in the cosmos, nature, and structure. This kind of retroduction or running it back is how we break out of and free from the delimitations of mind that many have erroenously considered as their home and placed it as criterion while displacing Intellect and Reason. There have been most verily and prodoundly great people and they are better than you - they see more, know more, realized more. Folks need to ask themselves if they're really honest with themselves. They who deny the Divine are to be shunned. Man needs to know his place.
Buddha vs. Mara, Jesus vs. Satan - the more spiritual man becomes the more polarized is he to the world. There is a fight between Spirit and matter. This is what the teachings revealed. Becoming enlightened doesn't free man from suffering long as he's embodied. Those who know not the Self are most happy and content. This is what has been revealed. Give some actual substance of what you're referring to. Far too many people make trite verbatim comments with no substance.
Every self can have their own experiences, you cannot explain self with mind. And a person only sees feels and experiences himself. The illusion of understanding the world is funny as the world remains same till death for narrow selves.
@@S3RAVA3LM Neither u nor I are enlightened. Buddhist think pure consciousness is empty. Hindus think it is bliss and ultimate experience. Our culture and tradition biases both of us to have different beliefs. Practically speaking the true nature of self is bliss which is what we all strive for in this material life.
@@ChakkaYashwanth All is modern later versions of an original model and check each of your desires, impulses, thoughts - most will drive you like a car towards someone's GDP or towards shame.
...Gentlemen, we are all ... wonderfully & fearfully created...As we live our lives, grow in our knowledge, we adapt to life's Turbulent Flow, & the drive for survival is strong, not only in the animals but within Man as well, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... captivus brevis...you tube...Blessings...
@@lesliecunliffe4450 I wish Robert would stop interviewing modern authors and study these books a prolific authors instead: Periphyseon, by Eriugena, translation by O'Meara. Plotinus Enneads, 'Select works' translated by Thomas Taylor and complete translation by Lyyod Gerson. Plato, translated by Thomas Taylor. Proclus books, translated by Taylor. Iamblichus books. Syrianus books. Bhagavad Gita, translated by Sri Aurobindo. Upanishads translated by Nikhilananda 4 vol. set, and the 18 principal Upanishads translated by Radhakrisnan. Buddha Nikayas. Upadesa sahashria by sankara, translated by jagadananda. Vivekacudamani by sankara, translated by Madhavananda. Philosophy as a rite of Rebirth by Algis U. Meister Eckhart complete works. The Unknown God, by D. Carabine. Mystical languages of unsaying, by M. Sells. Plotinus: Road to Reality, by JM Rist. Bible - KJV translation only. archaic is very important here with mysticism. Jacob Bohme books - a German mystics Emmanuel Swedenborg books - a scientist turned mystic and metaphysics. Ananda Coomaraswamy books & essays. The presocratic Philosopher's - book. Sweet touches of harmony - book; Pythagorean influence. Lore and science in ancient pythagoreanism - book. The Universal One, by Walter Russel. The gods of field theory: Henri Poincare Tesla Steinmetz Maxwell Heaviside Dollard
Simon Blackburn is so illusory that I just do not bother with his opinions anymore. He seems kind of fake, too. Who wastes time thinking about the opinions of some fake illusion?
It has been said that the ego is the soul identified with a body. However from a religious perspective each soul is unique and the body is temporary anyway. Where they believe in reincarnation the soul takes on many bodies and identities over lifetimes but it is the same unique soul.
@ALavin-en1kr It is very difficult to make definite statements concerning the gestalt of transtemporally consistent self-identity. Nonetheless, it is reckless to assert, as Blackburn does, that such transtemporally consistent identity is illusory. If one asserts that such things are illusory, then one might as well say that all mental concepts are illusory, including the entire scientific construct, along with all ideas about factual information. An honest take on the history of world philosophy-including Western philosophy-reveals that the existence of a spatiotemporally unreferenced self is not a purely religious idea.
@@iain9821 I agree. It has been said that all except consciousness is illusionary and mind is illusionary as it is elemental. Even a nightly dream, although it may not have any source other than the mind is not illusionary in the sense that it is experienced. It does not exist in the physical or elemental world but it still exists as an experience in the mind. Daily life is equated with this as a dream in the mind of a Dreamer in which we are entities and perceive it and ourselves as real when only our awareness is real, not what we are aware of.
@@iain9821 It has been said that just the Dreamer and conscious entities in the earthly dream are real all else is illusion. The entities in our nightly dreams are not real but then we are not God and our thoughts are not things; viable things as are all entities that consciously share in consciousness while not being consciousness itself, which is separate and ‘the hard problem’ for philosophers.
