A challenge to the modern scientific view of the self.

[Wyman]

Well, I'm a materialist, but I don't think you are giving enough respect to the argument he is making. I agree that like your desk, you are just a bundle of quarks whose boundaries are delineated by any number of non-quantum meta-descriptions. The difference is, the desk does not have subjective conscious experiences which it uses to navigate through the world. We do not just identify ourselves by noticing contiguous states or quark configurations as we might a chair - those are just competing descriptions. We actually experience ourselves now as the same thing we were five minutes ago. And it does not help your argument that the subjective qualia of experience has absolutely no scientific explanation

First off, the argument he was making (in the first five minutes at least--again, I'm tackling one thing at a time) wasn't the usual "Consciousness is a big mystery" nonsense. He was making an argument based on identity through time. And the problem with that argument is that whether consciousness is a big mystery or not, we're not identical at time T1 and T2.

Re the "consciousness is a big mystery" rhetoric, the first set of things that need to be tackled per the way you're stating the argument is this: just what counts as an explanation; why does the answer to our previous question count as an explanation; and what does having an explanation have to do with what's factually the case in terms of ontology--does facts-in-the-world somehow hinge on our explanations?

At any rate, if his initial argument had been about some things having mental states whereas other things do not, I would have addressed the argument however he would have made it. If he makes that argument later on, I'll deal with it after we go over this first argument. I like doing one thing at a time.

I disagree and think you are deflecting, brushing off the difficult issues with patronizing rhetoric. You mentioned Dennett somewhere. He took those issues seriously enough to write several books attempting to address them.

[Dalek Prime]

Dear Forum readers...

i have attempted disprove the modern teaching of body being the self in this audio lecture. i was hoping that some of you can try to find some flaws in my arguments. I teach yoga philosophy classes and nobody ever challenges these points. A healthy challenge is good because it forces me to go deeper in my understanding. Actually this is not a theory to me...what i am saying i know to be true...its just that i want to communicate it in an irrefutable way, and possibly there are some angles that i have not seen that leave me open to criticism. thank you for your time

https://soundcloud.com/user-255793295-8 ... f-the-self

What are you without your brain (a part of your body)? Why teach yoga if the self isn't the body? Yoga is physical; that is, of the body. What then are you trying to perfect?

Seriously, you may think this the truth, that the self is not the body, but without it, you are nada. And you'll not convince me otherwise. And if your reasoning leads you to the opposite view, I'd suggest you rethink the premises your reasoning is built upon.

[ypc]

Dear Forum readers...

i have attempted disprove the modern teaching of body being the self in this audio lecture. i was hoping that some of you can try to find some flaws in my arguments. I teach yoga philosophy classes and nobody ever challenges these points. A healthy challenge is good because it forces me to go deeper in my understanding. Actually this is not a theory to me...what i am saying i know to be true...its just that i want to communicate it in an irrefutable way, and possibly there are some angles that i have not seen that leave me open to criticism. thank you for your time

https://soundcloud.com/user-255793295-8 ... f-the-self

What are you without your brain (a part of your body)? Why teach yoga if the self isn't the body? Yoga is physical; that is, of the body. What then are you trying to perfect?

Seriously, you may think this the truth, that the self is not the body, but without it, you are nada. And you'll not convince me otherwise. And if your reasoning leads you to the opposite view, I'd suggest you rethink the premises your reasoning is built upon.

Hey Dalek...actually its a common misconception that yoga means simply stretching exercises...its actually a system that helps a person realize what im saying. The word Yoga means "the union of the soul with the supreme soul". One of the first things a person learns when taking up the process of yoga is that the body is only a temporary vehicle..its not actually the self.

[sthitapragya]

Hey Dalek...actually its a common misconception that yoga means simply stretching exercises...its actually a system that helps a person realize what im saying. The word Yoga means "the union of the soul with the supreme soul". One of the first things a person learns when taking up the process of yoga is that the body is only a temporary vehicle..its not actually the self.

What does the soul get out of it? Tell me this. The soul is supposed to be indestructible and imperturbable. So why does it need anything at all? It IS the supreme soul. Nainam chindanti shastrani nainam dahati paavakah nachaina kaledayantyapo na soshayati marutaha.(I assume that you know a little bit of the Gita and this is one of the famous shlokas) The soul cannot be pierced by a weapon, nor can it be burnt by fire. It cannot be wet by water nor can it be dried by the wind. Essentially, it is eternal, indestructible, IMMUTABLE and already in nirvana. So it already knows that it is one with the universal soul. How can yoga help? What can it teach the soul that the soul does not already know?

[HexHammer]

Pure nonsense and babble, circular logic ad libitum! It's shaking x-mas presents at best, it has no scientific value, nor any educational, beneficial value! ..you even dare say it's a scientific fact to underline your point.

The perception of self has nothing to do with molecules as of such, it's an irrelevant analogy.

99% of all people have NO critical thinking skills, why you can get away with garbage, and even make lots believe in it.

Here's a prime example of why you can fool the majority of people on various philosophy fora, they believe in anything!
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=16218

[Dalek Prime]

Dear Forum readers...

i have attempted disprove the modern teaching of body being the self in this audio lecture. i was hoping that some of you can try to find some flaws in my arguments. I teach yoga philosophy classes and nobody ever challenges these points. A healthy challenge is good because it forces me to go deeper in my understanding. Actually this is not a theory to me...what i am saying i know to be true...its just that i want to communicate it in an irrefutable way, and possibly there are some angles that i have not seen that leave me open to criticism. thank you for your time

https://soundcloud.com/user-255793295-8 ... f-the-self

What are you without your brain (a part of your body)? Why teach yoga if the self isn't the body? Yoga is physical; that is, of the body. What then are you trying to perfect?

Seriously, you may think this the truth, that the self is not the body, but without it, you are nada. And you'll not convince me otherwise. And if your reasoning leads you to the opposite view, I'd suggest you rethink the premises your reasoning is built upon.

Hey Dalek...actually its a common misconception that yoga means simply stretching exercises...its actually a system that helps a person realize what im saying. The word Yoga means "the union of the soul with the supreme soul". One of the first things a person learns when taking up the process of yoga is that the body is only a temporary vehicle..its not actually the self.

Don't patronize me. I know what yoga is, but there is a reason you are fine tuning the vehicle through yoga; because it is you. If you abuse that vehicle, only you suffer.

Now, unless you are a dualist, you are your brain. You do not exist until that brain exists, and you will cease to exist when the brain does. All of our ancestors not existing at present proves this in a reasonably certain manner, no matter what eastern mysticism says about it to the contrary. And yes, that does mean it's temporary. Hence the meaning of 'temporal'.

[Terrapin Station]

I disagree

Hardly my problem in context, at this point in the conversation, especially with you not saying just what with and why you disagree.

[Wyman]

I disagree

Hardly my problem in context, at this point in the conversation, especially with you not saying just what with and why you disagree.

Well, as far as I can see it, this is your 'argument':

You five years ago, re personal identity, is NOT identical to you now. You five minutes ago is not identical to you now. You five seconds ago is not identical to you now, either.

And yet that is not an argument, it is a statement. Defending it after following it to its logical conclusions, I think, is as difficult as maintaining the OP's view.

[Conde Lucanor]

o if you are saying physical reality is the only reality that exists...then there esssentially is no difference between a dead body and a living body.

That is not what follows. "Essentially not different" is here a blatant reductionism. There are many differences between a dead body and a living body, and they all can be inferred from their physical properties.

I accept the conclusion that death simply means the self leaving the body.

The concept of a non-material "spirit" inside a material body is a religious belief with no grounds on factual evidence. People have consciousness because they have brains.

the materialist ulitmately has to conclude that the body IS the self. therefore this leads to all kinds of practical problems. for example. he may accept the conclusion in forums etc. but what happens when he turns away from the computer and sees his wife's lifeless body?. according to his philosophy nothing has changed since every single part of matter that was there before she died is there after.

No, it's not. All bodily functions and activities of cells, tissues, organs, etc., have ceased to operate when a person dies. The heart does not pump blood to tissues, they don't receive oxygen and die. Mainly, the brain activity stops completely. Does that look to you like "nothing has changed"?

yet for some reason he cries "shes gone, shes gone" well if she is nothing but matter, she hasnt gone...shes still right there. Matter only theorists tend to reveal their faith in their philosophy at such times.

I really expect you realize they would say that metaphorically: gone in the sense that they will not enjoy the company of that living person anymore.

[Terrapin Station]

Wyman, wait, so you were saying that you disagree with my view, and not that you disagree with my comment about the argument that the TC was making? (Because the latter is what the post was about to which you wrote in "I disagree" in response.)

[Terrapin Station]

sorry but im not interested in replying anymore...too many opinions on here with out enough substance to back up claims . . .

So, basically--and unfortunately completely unsurprisingly--you weren't looking for a conversation aimed at telling you what might be wrong with your argument. You were looking for either (a) support of your argument, basically a lot of patting-him-on-the-back replies, or (b) critiques that wouldn't take you "off script," so that you could just reply with what are basically canned responses, a la reading responses to objections off of a telemarketing script, and thus feel more confident about your rhetoric.

[Terrapin Station]

o if you are saying physical reality is the only reality that exists...then there esssentially is no difference between a dead body and a living body.

That is not what follows. "Essentially not different" is here a blatant reductionism. There are many differences between a dead body and a living body, and they all can be inferred from their physical properties.

I didn't notice the post where he said this and the other stuff you quoted (or are you transcribing or paraphrasing from further into his audio blog or whatever that was?)

At any rate, folks on "his side" of these sorts of arguments ridiculously often seem to forward that strawman or make that mistake: they take physicalists/materialists to be saying something about materials with no regard to relations--to how the materials are put together--or processes. No materialist is saying that relations and processes do not matter (which of course you know, Conde, but I'm just making that explicit).

[Conde Lucanor]

o if you are saying physical reality is the only reality that exists...then there esssentially is no difference between a dead body and a living body.

That is not what follows. "Essentially not different" is here a blatant reductionism. There are many differences between a dead body and a living body, and they all can be inferred from their physical properties.

I didn't notice the post where he said this and the other stuff you quoted (or are you transcribing or paraphrasing from further into his audio blog or whatever that was?)

I took from both, but the "essentially not different" quote is my correction of "there esssentially is no difference" sentence, which you can read in that very same post I replied to.

At any rate, folks on "his side" of these sorts of arguments ridiculously often seem to forward that strawman or make that mistake: they take physicalists/materialists to be saying something about materials with no regard to relations--to how the materials are put together--or processes. No materialist is saying that relations and processes do not matter (which of course you know, Conde, but I'm just making that explicit).

You described the approach perfectly, in fewer words than me. I always applaud such effectiveness with economy of means.

[Wyman]

Wyman, wait, so you were saying that you disagree with my view, and not that you disagree with my comment about the argument that the TC was making? (Because the latter is what the post was about to which you wrote in "I disagree" in response.)

I'm sorry I wasn't very clear and jumped in on and ongoing conversation. I mean that I disagree with the notion that your arguments for your position are persuasive. I haven't found persuasive arguments for either position, so I don't claim one position or the other, which is where the confusion in my statements lay. Here is an instance where I think the contemporary 'enlightened' point of view becomes deceptive:

The concept of a non-material "spirit" inside a material body is a religious belief with no grounds on factual evidence. People have consciousness because they have brains.

CL glibly dismisses 'spirits' in favor of 'consciousness,' as if the latter, because it is a currently acceptable term in contemporary science, is less ambiguous and problematic than 'spirits.' He packs all the dirty laundry in that one term hoping no one asks him to unpack it.

[Terrapin Station]

I'm sorry I wasn't very clear and jumped in on and ongoing conversation. I mean that I disagree with the notion that your arguments for your position are persuasive.

Well, if you'd asked me if I had any expectations of any of my comments being persuasive, so that people who didn't previously agree with my views would start to share my views, I'd definitely say "No." (And that's what I'd always say when asked that.)

Although that would largely be a symptom of my views about psychological facts, about typical interpersonal behavior on the Internet, and so on.

The concept of a non-material "spirit" inside a material body is a religious belief with no grounds on factual evidence. People have consciousness because they have brains . . .

CL glibly dismisses 'spirits' in favor of 'consciousness,' as if the latter, because it is a currently acceptable term in contemporary science, is less ambiguous and problematic than 'spirits.' He packs all the dirty laundry in that one term hoping no one asks him to unpack it.

The idea that consciousness is ambiguous or problematic strikes me as quite bizarre, and it makes me wonder what the person's mind must be like, if it is like anything--maybe they're really a robot or something--who finds it ambigous and/or problematic. "Spirits" on the other hand is a vague fantasy term, unless the person is simply using it as a synonym for "consciousness" or something like that.