Julian Baggini sets out to answer one of the most fundamental of philosophical questions -- what is the self? Listen to the full audio: thersa.org/events/audio-and-past-events/2011/what-does-it-mean-to-be-you
especially liked the question session.. the monk-ism critique, and the finding your self to become less self-ish paradox... i once had an unproven theory that yoga turned my friends boring - in gaining the ability to fold themselves up their bums physically they inevitably began disappearing up their own bums mentally :0)... ... ...
@rooley video isn't really my medium, though i have written (and published, albeit non-popular accademic work) on related issues - my complaint is about the hubris: that the self is in many respects an effect rather than a cause is an idea which has been around in various forms in various places for a long time. Directly on the topic of this talk i would point to Francisco Varela's The Embodied Mind, which links philosophy, neuroscience and buddism - it was published over 13 years ago.
This is something I've been contemplating for a while. Finally a neat video explaining all that of which I've failed to form into words myself. This is what it means to be one with everything. Your nothing more than a form from this universe; a natural phenomenon, a collection of small events. 'What is one's self?' is but an irrelevant question. The question itself, is purely semantics.
I usually say every copy of me is me because each copy is a path of continuity for Self. If every copy of me remembers being me then "I" continue on ^_^ helps to be a disassociation in this case because my self is separate from the body like a dvd is separate from a computer ;D
Very interesting stuff indeed, and very well presented. Also interesting to see how this relates to the evidence that appears to indicate that whatever we call "our personality" somehow survives bodily death. If interested, look up 21 Days into the Afterlife.
BAH! I'd take that wager- because I don''t care for what I am, or more aptly what I am defined as- because we only know ourselves in our relation to others
Is the official goal of Buddhism to create more ethical and compassionate people? I'm no expert, but I believe that's just a byproduct of moving toward the Truth of existence which I think is large enough to hold all of the points made here and everywhere else. What almost looks like a kind of debate here is itself a illusory construct.
@fathernicolow The thing about being a disassociation is the brain is not mine. I don't have a brain of my own yet ^_^ That is where jellyfish tech comes in. Direct neural interface between my source and a prosthetic system ;D the prosthetic learns to be me by being me. Either that or I link to an oberon brain hybrotic system and run several brains via remote interface. Each time one of me gains new information it sends it back to the main system for dissemination to the whole.^_^
@Killedkennyagain I agree to a point except murder really doesn't have a role in a civilised society. It's not egotistical, selfish or narcissistic to refuse someone the privilege of doing so. You may think it in terms of a choice for yourself to make but isn't that essentially being selfish to decide to give your life away like that? What of your family, your job, your friends, your essential worth on this earth being removed?
"Look at myself. I'm so much nothing" Baggini argues only from extreme views... in order to flatter himSELF. It's precisely the opposite purpose of self-inquiry, Buddhism and spirituality in general.
@juxhesx - well that would be true up to the present - but its probable that all memory is encoded by emotion -there is little that you would term memory - that wasnt connected to emotion - if its a non emotional memory -isnt simply knowledge
@tonybeir did you miss the point where I said I was a disassociation ^_^ I can copy and reintegrate indefinitely as long as there is a medium to express me ^_^ I'm just data. Its like cancer. A cancer can live long after its original body dies as long as a few cells have a conducive medium. There are canine cancers spread as an STD that are thousands of years old. The original dog has been dead a long time ;D If every dog with the cancer died the chain would be broken though.
@Killedkennyagain In my view, social good becomes the foreseeable usefulness of some type of sacrifice to be made. Giving a small amount to charity to ensure basic human life support in poor countries most would agree is the easiest form of social good. But what about people who give their life away to something? Military sacrifice is perhaps the oldest example but what about in terms of economics saying let's have higher taxes so we can ensure a better basic survival for all of us?
i lean towards a sort of transhumanist desire as i am not a beliver in the soul - i just think ideally if a consious self is able to be entirely non biological -the expiernce of genuine emotion will need to be a part of it - to have a full continuance - i would probably sacrifice it if presented with an alternative of non existence.- it needs tobe incorporated into a non biological self ,as it is a determinate in whats valuable enough to encode. data value is a complex problem without it
If the sense of self is merely a collection of experiences, then who is it that is doing the forgetting? I disagree with the fundamental premise. If you look closely into your thought process you notice that it is divided into two parts. That internal dialogue or thoughts , and the part that listens to those thoughts. I am not my thoughts, but thinking is something that i do, Likewise if i have not had any experiences, how can i know who i am, except by what i am not through Self reference?cont
... it will be a very different not only in its expierences - but in its emotions - it will be enhanced -in its other parts - but it will different and dificient in its emotions - a trans human form of you would perhaps recall mundane facts about the color of an object viewed in passing - but it will have a different non emotional response - where you may have otherwise seen but not encoded it - perhaps im wrong -and perhaps it would still be preferable to non existence - but emotion is self too
Though clear in statement, Baggini's views rely upon the unfortunate dissection and fragmentation of phenomena. Like all analytic philosophers, he dissects mental events and doing this, misunderstands buddhist views. Anatta does not just mean 'no subjective'self.It also means all phenomena are emptied of self. It would be worth his while to study madyamika philosophy, which states that truth and reality are free of the extremes of both self and non self..Baggini argues only from extreme views.
The irony is obsession with an ultimate objective like enlightenment where one's self is dissolved is also a form of attachment. I think Julian is still applying western logic to an eastern thought process. Eastern thought was about doing and presence rather than pragmatic implications. It wasn't about achieving but rather just being. Also ironic is that Julian's supposed "rebuttal" to buddhism is more buddhist than he cares to realize
memorys desires beliefs and knowledge -dont define the selffully -also included are inteligence and emotions. - which largely encode the other parts and are also a result of them - i think a problem transhumanist will find -if they are able to encode the other parts - i think emotions will be extremely difficult - in a non chemical self. emotions are so complex, they will remain a very difficult to encode - if a trans humanist form of you -is achieved while you are still biological ....
desires, memories... we dont have it and knowledge either as much as consciousness project it. simulacrum has it. fabric of reality has memories. call it avatar, ego, mental projection if you will. take DMT. stop talking rubbish. formulate meta language formulas in first place. too much wording. lack consistency and definitions. Tibetan people make difference between SEM and RIGPA (MIND).Pribruim and others... look up Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot.
This is utterly preposterous! Without the individual mind (physical brain), none of those aggregates of thoughts and memories are possible. We ARE concrete individuals. Simply stating that we change, means that we do not have solitary self-hood is just silly. Think of it like one computer adding capability, memory and programs over the years. It is still the same computer.
Julian is a good writer and a talented philosopher but not really a public speaker. He doesn't emote very well and seems to move through the words too quickly.
do people really think this is original?? it seems to me that while i can appreciate the popular nature of this talk this is so far behind, and not acknowledging, where so much social and cultural theory and philosophy is at present its gobsmacking. Also the attempt to think through political and social implications is pretty woeful...
