What is the use of self?

[henry quirk]

"The Self is a fiction."

I seem pretty real...my ass (me) is discomforted by the crappy chair I'm sittin' in right now. And the person sittin' across from me, the one who needs a shower, his stink seems pretty real to me, comin' offa his apparently real body (which is 'him').

Morality is a fiction, equality is a fiction, rights are a fiction: self/I-ness is as real as my sore ass or that bum's funk.

[Dontaskme]

"The Self is a fiction."

I seem pretty real...my ass (me) is discomforted by the crappy chair I'm sittin' in right now. And the person sittin' across from me, the one who needs a shower, his stink seems pretty real to me, comin' offa his apparently real body (which is 'him').

Morality is a fiction, equality is a fiction, rights are a fiction: self/I-ness is as real as my sore ass or that bum's funk.

There is no Self/I-ness because there is no other than Self/I-ness

Fiction is the most misunderstood word in philosophy.

Fiction is not complete nothingness; it doesn't mean that nothing exists at all. This would be a nihilistic view contrary to common sense. What it does mean is that things do not exist the way our grasping self supposes they do. All phenomena in their own-being are empty. ''own-being'' means separate independent existence.

Nothing we see or hear (or are) stands alone; everything is a tentative expression of one seamless, ever-changing landscape. So though no individual person or thing has any permanent, fixed identity,everything taken together is what constitutes reality which is no a thing. Therefore, Everything is the same as Nothing.

[henry quirk]

Fiction = not real, made up.

I am real. You are real.

[Dontaskme]

Fiction = not real, made up.

I am real. You are real.

I am is real....yes.

I am a 'person' is fiction.

[henry quirk]

Since I am a person, and I am real, then I am a real person.

[Dontaskme]

Since I am a person, and I am real, then I am a real person.

The I Am is not a person.

A person is a thought.

I Am is prior to any thought.

I Am is this immediate thoughtless silent presence, a sure permanent state in which the fictional impermanent thoughts arise and fall. That prior state has to be for any knowing to be known, without that prior state, there would be no possibility of thought to arise.

Even to know the I Am is a thought.

[henry quirk]

I got no clue what what you (think) you are but me, I'm flesh and blood, solid (and liquid and semi-solid and semi-liquid, etc.).

[Dontaskme]

I got no clue what what you (think) you are but me, I'm flesh and blood, solid (and liquid and semi-solid and semi-liquid, etc.).

Granted, you are what you think you are, otherwise you are nothing at all.

Happy days.

[henry quirk]

To us all.

[bahman]

But I asked you if a "self" could function without input?

Sure we can act without input. We have internal thoughts that we can act base on them unless you say that thoughts are external to self.

[ken]

But I asked you if a "self" could function without input?

Sure we can act without input. We have internal thoughts that we can act base on them unless you say that thoughts are external to self.

No I do not say thoughts are external to self. What I do say is that thoughts can only internally arise from input. That is unless of course you can give some examples of any internal thoughts existing without prior input.

[bahman]

But I asked you if a "self" could function without input?

Sure we can act without input. We have internal thoughts that we can act base on them unless you say that thoughts are external to self.

No I do not say thoughts are external to self. What I do say is that thoughts can only internally arise from input. That is unless of course you can give some examples of any internal thoughts existing without prior input.

Consider the time that we think of abstract things. The only things which are involved are thoughts, imaginations, etc. which all are internal.

[ken]

Sure we can act without input. We have internal thoughts that we can act base on them unless you say that thoughts are external to self.

No I do not say thoughts are external to self. What I do say is that thoughts can only internally arise from input. That is unless of course you can give some examples of any internal thoughts existing without prior input.

Consider the time that we think of abstract things. The only things which are involved are thoughts, imaginations, etc. which all are internal.

Two things here;
1. Where did thoughts originate from? Was an input needed to create those thoughts?
2. What triggered the thinking of abstract things. Was an input needed to trigger thoughts, imaginations, et cetera?

[Ginkgo]

We know that any system is functional if it does X by receiving Y, where X is a set of actions (output) and Y is a set of stimulus (input). The question is what is the use of self if the system, human for example, can function without it?

It can't, otherwise we would be philosophical zombies.

Philosophical zombie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Zombie (disambiguation).

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacks conscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, a philosophical zombie could be poked with a sharp object and not feel any pain sensation, but yet behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or say that it is in intense pain).

The notion of a philosophical zombie is used mainly in thought experiments intended to support arguments (often called "zombie arguments") against forms of physicalism such as materialism, behaviorism and functionalism. Physicalism is the idea that all aspects of human nature can be explained by physical means: specifically, all aspects of human nature and perception can be explained from a neurobiological standpoint. Some philosophers, like David Chalmers, argue that since a zombie is defined as physiologically indistinguishable from human beings, even its logical possibility would be a sound refutation of physicalism.[2] However, physicalists like Daniel Dennett counter that Chalmers's physiological zombies are logically incoherent and thus impossible.[3][4]

Philosophical zombie refers to being which cannot experience anything. Here we are talking about being who don't have self.

This depends on how you define self. If the concept of self is defined as corresponding to physical reality (reductive materialism) then philosophical zombies doesn't make any sense.In Chalmers' argument zombies are used tease out a distinction. Experience and self are interchangeable.In other words, zombies have no experience and they have no concept of self.

[bahman]

No I do not say thoughts are external to self. What I do say is that thoughts can only internally arise from input. That is unless of course you can give some examples of any internal thoughts existing without prior input.

Consider the time that we think of abstract things. The only things which are involved are thoughts, imaginations, etc. which all are internal.

Two things here;
1. Where did thoughts originate from? Was an input needed to create those thoughts?
2. What triggered the thinking of abstract things. Was an input needed to trigger thoughts, imaginations, etcetera?

Why we should need the origin of an abstract thought? The important thing is that we can be busy with abstract thoughts for a long time.