What is the use of self?

[bahman]

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????????????

You perform lots of activities, all activities that you mastered and can perform them using subconscious mind, without a sense of self.

[sthitapragya]

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????????????

You perform lots of activities, all activities that you mastered and can perform them using subconscious mind, without a sense of self.

Just think about how you would do activities if you could not move, since you have no frame of reference. If you get it, you will realize how ridiculous your stand is. It is after having mastered them that you can do them subconsiously. And even now, if you had a stroke and lost your sense of self, you would be renedered in capable of activity. There is a ted talk of a woman who herself is a neuroscientist who had a stroke and described it. She said it took her 25 minutes to dial a number from a card because she kept losing her sense of self and could not even recognize numbers. She also said that when she lost her sense of self, she also lost her fears and worries completely. She felt a oneness as there was nothing separate from her and it was beautiful. She used to lose herself in that feeling and only when her sense of self kicked in, she would think of practical things like calling for help.

Without the sense of self, you are done. Period.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

[ken]

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.

I explained this previously in the question, If you have never experienced anything, then how could you have a thought? If you say we still can AND you provide some logically reasonable examples, then we can look at this further. However, if you can not and do not, and you do not change your view, then you will just remain 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.

If you believe there is absolutely no thoughts at all exidting within a head while it is driving, then you are seriously mistaken.

Just because you are not consciously aware of thoughts that does not mean they are not there, taking place. For example do you think your body can stop the car without some sort of thought taking place in the brain telling the foot to place itself on the brake pedal and push it at a certain amount of pressure so to reduce the speed of the car to a necessary speed so as to avoid a collision with domething else? Or do you just think your body can function completely autonomously without any one driving it?

Sure, the human body can function in unconscious mode, for example, like when it is completely unaware of why it is here in Life and who the person within it actually is. The human body can also function in sub-coscious mode, for example, like when after years of experience of driving a car the human body can preform many, many functions and even drive very long distances whilst not being fully aware of what it is actually doing. BUT there is still thoughts taking place that are only sub-consciously being aware of. Then there are the obvious consciously aware of thoughts like when we are deciding were we are, where we are, and how we are going to get to where we want to get to when we are not very familiar with the places.

[bahman]

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????????????

You perform lots of activities, all activities that you mastered and can perform them using subconscious mind, without a sense of self.

Just think about how you would do activities if you could not move, since you have no frame of reference. If you get it, you will realize how ridiculous your stand is. It is after having mastered them that you can do them subconsiously. And even now, if you had a stroke and lost your sense of self, you would be renedered in capable of activity. There is a ted talk of a woman who herself is a neuroscientist who had a stroke and described it. She said it took her 25 minutes to dial a number from a card because she kept losing her sense of self and could not even recognize numbers. She also said that when she lost her sense of self, she also lost her fears and worries completely. She felt a oneness as there was nothing separate from her and it was beautiful. She used to lose herself in that feeling and only when her sense of self kicked in, she would think of practical things like calling for help.

Without the sense of self, you are done. Period.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

[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.

I explained this previously in the question, If you have never experienced anything, then how could you have a thought? If you say we still can AND you provide some logically reasonable examples, then we can look at this further. However, if you can not and do not, and you do not change your view, then you will just remain puzzled.

That is true that we need to experience actual things in our early stage of lives before we can construct any abstract thoughts. I just don't understand how such a things is possible: How we can possibly have an abstract thought when all things we can experience in our lives are actual?

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.

If you believe there is absolutely no thoughts at all exidting within a head while it is driving, then you are seriously mistaken.

Just because you are not consciously aware of thoughts that does not mean they are not there, taking place. For example do you think your body can stop the car without some sort of thought taking place in the brain telling the foot to place itself on the brake pedal and push it at a certain amount of pressure so to reduce the speed of the car to a necessary speed so as to avoid a collision with something else? Or do you just think your body can function completely autonomously without any one driving it?

Sure, the human body can function in unconscious mode, for example, like when it is completely unaware of why it is here in Life and who the person within it actually is. The human body can also function in sub-coscious mode, for example, like when after years of experience of driving a car the human body can preform many, many functions and even drive very long distances whilst not being fully aware of what it is actually doing. BUT there is still thoughts taking place that are only sub-consciously being aware of. Then there are the obvious consciously aware of thoughts like when we are deciding were we are, where we are, and how we are going to get to where we want to get to when we are not very familiar with the places.

I am not sure that the subconscious mental states are thoughts. Do you have an argument or an evidence to show that? Thought for me is a conscious mental state.

[Dalek Prime]

No real use. But we can always make it up as we go. Which we do.

[sthitapragya]

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

Nope. You still don't get it. Every single activity requires a sense of self. You act of walking might be subconscious but the action walking is initiated by the self. There is no escaping the self. Without the sense of self, you are done with. Period.

[bahman]

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

...Your act of walking might be subconscious but the action walking is initiated by the self...

I don't understand why you disagree with me. The act of walking is subconscious meaning that there is no need for self whereas the act of initiating to walk is conscious because you need a sens of self to decide consciously.

[Greta]

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

...Your act of walking might be subconscious but the action walking is initiated by the self...

I don't understand why you disagree with me. The act of walking is subconscious meaning that there is no need for self whereas the act of initiating to walk is conscious because you need a sens of self to decide consciously.

He disagrees because the interaction between mind and body is a complex feedback loop and attempts to boil the situation down tend to leave gaps.

The great human challenge is one of impulse control. We venerate it but find it elusive, and even when we gain some control, the initial drivers of our controlled behaviours stem from emotions that ultimately stem just from circumstance. Virtually every pop song ever written either lauds or decries impulse control failures, or the results of those mistakes. Ditto movies and books. Almost everything we read or hear in the news is about impulse control failures or problems that stemmed from impulse control failures.

The self keeps us alive but at the cost of joy. Our impulses give us joy, but they entail risk. The sense of self provides protection - the awareness that conflicts of interest exist between our bodies and the rest of the environment. The self is about suspicion, caution, distrust, fear with concomitant strategy and morality. Abandonment of the self would seem mostly associated with flow states, intoxication and startle responses - those times when one cannot recall what one did or how it was done.

A strong sense of self "smooths" out the highs and lows of our lives through avoidance of problems and cautious control of highs.

[Ginkgo]

You perform lots of activities, all activities that you mastered and can perform them using subconscious mind, without a sense of self.

Just think about how you would do activities if you could not move, since you have no frame of reference. If you get it, you will realize how ridiculous your stand is. It is after having mastered them that you can do them subconsiously. And even now, if you had a stroke and lost your sense of self, you would be renedered in capable of activity. There is a ted talk of a woman who herself is a neuroscientist who had a stroke and described it. She said it took her 25 minutes to dial a number from a card because she kept losing her sense of self and could not even recognize numbers. She also said that when she lost her sense of self, she also lost her fears and worries completely. She felt a oneness as there was nothing separate from her and it was beautiful. She used to lose herself in that feeling and only when her sense of self kicked in, she would think of practical things like calling for help.

Without the sense of self, you are done. Period.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

It was an interesting talk, the woman in question appeared to lose her sense of self from time to time. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" locates the self in the act of thinking. On the other hand, Hume argues there is no such thing as the self because we cannot view ourselves in any unified way. I have to admit I am sympathetic to the dichotomy you propose. I think the woman in question still experiences her environment even when she loses her sense of self.

[bahman]

...Your act of walking might be subconscious but the action walking is initiated by the self...

I don't understand why you disagree with me. The act of walking is subconscious meaning that there is no need for self whereas the act of initiating to walk is conscious because you need a sens of self to decide consciously.

He disagrees because the interaction between mind and body is a complex feedback loop and attempts to boil the situation down tend to leave gaps.

The great human challenge is one of impulse control. We venerate it but find it elusive, and even when we gain some control, the initial drivers of our controlled behaviours stem from emotions that ultimately stem just from circumstance. Virtually every pop song ever written either lauds or decries impulse control failures, or the results of those mistakes. Ditto movies and books. Almost everything we read or hear in the news is about impulse control failures or problems that stemmed from impulse control failures.

The self keeps us alive but at the cost of joy. Our impulses give us joy, but they entail risk. The sense of self provides protection - the awareness that conflicts of interest exist between our bodies and the rest of the environment. The self is about suspicion, caution, distrust, fear with concomitant strategy and morality. Abandonment of the self would seem mostly associated with flow states, intoxication and startle responses - those times when one cannot recall what one did or how it was done.

A strong sense of self "smooths" out the highs and lows of our lives through avoidance of problems and cautious control of highs.

I don't know what impulse control failures is?

[bahman]

Just think about how you would do activities if you could not move, since you have no frame of reference. If you get it, you will realize how ridiculous your stand is. It is after having mastered them that you can do them subconsiously. And even now, if you had a stroke and lost your sense of self, you would be renedered in capable of activity. There is a ted talk of a woman who herself is a neuroscientist who had a stroke and described it. She said it took her 25 minutes to dial a number from a card because she kept losing her sense of self and could not even recognize numbers. She also said that when she lost her sense of self, she also lost her fears and worries completely. She felt a oneness as there was nothing separate from her and it was beautiful. She used to lose herself in that feeling and only when her sense of self kicked in, she would think of practical things like calling for help.

Without the sense of self, you are done. Period.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_ta ... anguage=en

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

It was an interesting talk, the woman in question appeared to lose her sense of self from time to time. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" locates the self in the act of thinking. On the other hand, Hume argues there is no such thing as the self because we cannot view ourselves in any unified way. I have to admit I am sympathetic to the dichotomy you propose. I think the woman in question still experiences her environment even when she loses her sense of self.

I think that the lady was able to walk without focus so the act of walking did not need a sense of self.

[sthitapragya]

I think the woman in question still experiences her environment even when she loses her sense of self.

Absolutely, but she cannot comprehend what she experienced because there is no reference frame except for the fact that it 'felt' beautiful and wonderful since all stress was gone (which I believe is something that she concluded after she recovered). Without a reference frame of the self, what the brain experiences, it cannot translate into lucid language even to itself because there is no itself to relate to. Every single activity requires a frame of reference and that includes walking.

The self is something that we take for granted. I don't mean any kind of mystical sense of higher consciousness or any such thing by the way. I simply mean self as the ability to identify your personal separation from other things and your ability to establish the position of that separate identity with respect to other things. As Greta says, it is the feed back of change of position which allows us to know when to move, when to start walking, when to speed up, when to slow down and when to stop.

I made a mistake when I said that the self initiates the walking. What I really should have said that the conscious mind initiates the walk and the subconscious mind takes over after that. The self is a constant which is relentlessly monitoring its position vis a vis the target destination and all and sundry obstructions along the way. If you understand this, you will realize that there is no way to do avoid the sense of self. It is required even when you are sitting and typing on the key board. The self is constantly monitoring the position of each finger vis a vis each key and taking it there. If there was no sense of self, there would be no sense of the position of the finger and even if the finger moved to a key it might not be the key you wanted to hit since you would have no way to relate with anything.

[sthitapragya]

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

...Your act of walking might be subconscious but the action walking is initiated by the self...

I don't understand why you disagree with me. The act of walking is subconscious meaning that there is no need for self whereas the act of initiating to walk is conscious because you need a sens of self to decide consciously.

No, my friend, because walking requires constant monitoring of your present position with reference to your destination. Every step takes you closer to your destination. Without the sense of self at work you would still not have a frame of reference. You conscious mind might not be using the self anymore but your subconscious mind definitely has to. How do you decide that you have reached your destination otherwise? How do you decide when to turn? How do you decide when to start slowing down? It all seems to happen automatically, but there is a constant monitoring going on of the position of the body with respect to the destination. Without the sense of self, no activity can occur. Period. You are just not giving this enough thought.

[sthitapragya]

That was an interesting talk. Now, I think we can divide our activities to two separate parts: (1) Those which need the sense of self (activities which we do consciously) and (2) those which do not need a sense of self (activities which we do subconsciously).

It was an interesting talk, the woman in question appeared to lose her sense of self from time to time. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" locates the self in the act of thinking. On the other hand, Hume argues there is no such thing as the self because we cannot view ourselves in any unified way. I have to admit I am sympathetic to the dichotomy you propose. I think the woman in question still experiences her environment even when she loses her sense of self.

I think that the lady was able to walk without focus so the act of walking did not need a sense of self.

She was not walking when she lost her sense of self. Even if she did, she would have no idea where she was going since she had no frame of reference. Just think this through. It is simply impossible to do any activity without the sense of self.