What is the use of self?

[Dontaskme]

Self is what you already are. It can't be reached. If it were to be reached it would mean that the self is not here and now but that it is yet to be obtained.

There is no division between action and reaction except when thought interferes and artificially separates them. Otherwise, this natural organic living organism (Self) is an automatic, unitary process and there is nothing you can do to stop it. The thinking is the thinker itself. The thinker cannot get rid of the thought because they are self arising. Any action that takes place at the conscious level of your thinking existence is a reaction. The stimulus-response process is a unitary phenomenon.

[ken]

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?

WHY? Because only with understanding the origin then you will understand that 'you' can not function without input.

The important thing is that we can be busy with abstract thoughts for a long time.

If all five senses, which allows input, were somehow prevented from working, then you will understand exactly how long you would actually function for. Without care from others you would be dead in a very short time I think. Think about that and you will understand that 'you', the self, actually do need input to function.

Even to be busy with abstract thoughts, which you have now as an adult, this ability originated and has come ONLY from input, so again input is NEEDED for 'you', a human being, to have abstract thought firstly.

Without any input you would not have abstract thoughts. And, even after gaining abstract thoughts,
Without any input you would not survive at long at all,

[bahman]

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.

The main question is what is the use of self when the system could function based on input and output. Are you saying that the system cannot function without the self?

[bahman]

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?

WHY? Because only with understanding the origin then you will understand that 'you' can not function without input.

The important thing is that we can be busy with abstract thoughts for a long time.

If all five senses, which allows input, were somehow prevented from working, then you will understand exactly how long you would actually function for. Without care from others you would be dead in a very short time I think. Think about that and you will understand that 'you', the self, actually do need input to function.

Even to be busy with abstract thoughts, which you have now as an adult, this ability originated and has come ONLY from input, so again input is NEEDED for 'you', a human being, to have abstract thought firstly.

Without any input you would not have abstract thoughts. And, even after gaining abstract thoughts,
Without any input you would not survive at long at all,

I think that the origin of an abstract thought is another abstract thought. I don't understand how an abstract thought could be initiated from an input which is not abstract. Do you know?

[bahman]

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.

Why?

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.

Why experience and self are interchangeable?

[Terrapin Station]

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.

Why?

It doesn't make any sense because consciousness/selves/all mental phenomena are properties of the materials in question. So you can't have identical materials without those materials having the properties in question.

[ken]

Why we should need the origin of an abstract thought?

WHY? Because only with understanding the origin then you will understand that 'you' can not function without input.

The important thing is that we can be busy with abstract thoughts for a long time.

If all five senses, which allows input, were somehow prevented from working, then you will understand exactly how long you would actually function for. Without care from others you would be dead in a very short time I think. Think about that and you will understand that 'you', the self, actually do need input to function.

Even to be busy with abstract thoughts, which you have now as an adult, this ability originated and has come ONLY from input, so again input is NEEDED for 'you', a human being, to have abstract thought firstly.

Without any input you would not have abstract thoughts. And, even after gaining abstract thoughts,
Without any input you would not survive at long at all,

I think that the origin of an abstract thought is another abstract thought. I don't understand how an abstract thought could be initiated from an input which is not abstract. Do you know?

Yes

[bahman]

WHY? Because only with understanding the origin then you will understand that 'you' can not function without input.



If all five senses, which allows input, were somehow prevented from working, then you will understand exactly how long you would actually function for. Without care from others you would be dead in a very short time I think. Think about that and you will understand that 'you', the self, actually do need input to function.

Even to be busy with abstract thoughts, which you have now as an adult, this ability originated and has come ONLY from input, so again input is NEEDED for 'you', a human being, to have abstract thought firstly.

Without any input you would not have abstract thoughts. And, even after gaining abstract thoughts,
Without any input you would not survive at long at all,

I think that the origin of an abstract thought is another abstract thought. I don't understand how an abstract thought could be initiated from an input which is not abstract. Do you know?

Yes

What is that?

[Ginkgo]

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.

The main question is what is the use of self when the system could function based on input and output. Are you saying that the system cannot function without the self?

A very difficult question to answer. A system can function without a sense of self, e.g. a functioning robot, but I doubt that a human could function without the self. The only possible exception would be professional sports people who are in a flow or zone mental state. To some extent they play their sport without a sense of self.

[sthitapragya]

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?

Because it cannot. You either simply refuse to see the glaringly obvious or for some reason cannot see the glaringly obvious. Without identification of self, there can simply be no perspective or reference frame for the person in question. And if you cannot understand this basic thing, there is nothing that can be said that will convince you otherwise.

[ken]

I think that the origin of an abstract thought is another abstract thought. I don't understand how an abstract thought could be initiated from an input which is not abstract. Do you know?

Yes

What is that?

I am not yet in a position, here in this forum, to explain this in full detail, but there are two questions that may help shed some light for you:
1. Could any thought, abstract or not, come about without a prior input?

If no, then go to question 2.
If yes, then how exactly? Provide examples.

2. Could a human being function without any thoughts whatsoever?

If no, then input is needed firstly before a human being could function.
If yes, then how exactly? Provide examples.

[bahman]

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.

The main question is what is the use of self when the system could function based on input and output. Are you saying that the system cannot function without the self?

A very difficult question to answer. A system can function without a sense of self, e.g. a functioning robot, but I doubt that a human could function without the self. The only possible exception would be professional sports people who are in a flow or zone mental state. To some extent they play their sport without a sense of self.

I think your comment is very useful. Robot functions without a sense of self. We do the same thing when the activity is based on something we have learn. So I think the next important question is: What is the use of self (consciousness) in learning?

[bahman]

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?

Because it cannot. You either simply refuse to see the glaringly obvious or for some reason cannot see the glaringly obvious. Without identification of self, there can simply be no perspective or reference frame for the person in question. And if you cannot understand this basic thing, there is nothing that can be said that will convince you otherwise.

You do lots of activity without using self. I think the only activity that make the self (consciousness) important is when we learn something.

[bahman]

I am not yet in a position, here in this forum, to explain this in full detail, but there are two questions that may help shed some light for you:
1. Could any thought, abstract or not, come about without a prior input?

If no, then go to question 2.
If yes, then how exactly? Provide examples.

I believe that there is a link between what we have experienced (input) and an abstract thought. That is true because we learn simple things (not abstract) through what we perceive in early part of life. I however don't understand how we could initiate an abstract thought and following a chain of abstracts thoughts since an abstract thought might not have anything to do with what we have experienced. So I am puzzled.

2. Could a human being function without any thoughts whatsoever?

If no, then input is needed firstly before a human being could function.
If yes, then how exactly? Provide examples.

Yes, human could function without any thoughts. Consider the cases when we do things that we learn very well, like driving.

[sthitapragya]

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?

Because it cannot. You either simply refuse to see the glaringly obvious or for some reason cannot see the glaringly obvious. Without identification of self, there can simply be no perspective or reference frame for the person in question. And if you cannot understand this basic thing, there is nothing that can be said that will convince you otherwise.

You do lots of activity without using self. I think the only activity that make the self (consciousness) important is when we learn something.

My God, man, you wouldn't be able to move without the concept of self. What reference frame would you use? To get to point B from point A, you need to know that you are at point A. To get to know that you are at point A, you need to know you as separate from point B. If there was no self, there would be no point A for you to grasp. How can you not understand this most obvious and ridiculously obvious thing?????????????????????????????

Look, either you get this or you don't. I am not going to reply anymore because this boggles my mind. How can anyone not get this????????????