A challenge to the modern scientific view of the self.

[sthitapragya]

Sthitapragya, it's tempting to think that eternity is a grasping at everlastingness. But immortality is the temporal self surviving body death. It's impossible for the scientific self to survive death. Atman ,unlike self, I suppose has no attributes, memories, or feelings so there is nothing that survives death as there is no death for atman to survive.

In which case, the atman never was the self in the first place, temporal or otherwise. The self is the sum total of one's experiences. Without feelings or memories, there can be no experiences. So even if there is an atman, the self is obliterated at death. The atman plays no role of any kind whatsoever. It is just a stranger we carry with us through our lives for no rhyme or reason.

[OuterLimits]

In which case, the atman never was the self in the first place, temporal or otherwise. The self is the sum total of one's experiences. Without feelings or memories, there can be no experiences. So even if there is an atman, the self is obliterated at death. The atman plays no role of any kind whatsoever. It is just a stranger we carry with us through our lives for no rhyme or reason.

Isn't it more scientific to simply regard one's neighbor as only speaking as if they had experiences? Then there is nothing to be "obliterated at death" because it was nothing to be *like* that person in the first place. The evolutionary behaviors of "talking about experiences" are caused by the material necessities of the forces acting on the dumb particles that make up that person.

[sthitapragya]

In which case, the atman never was the self in the first place, temporal or otherwise. The self is the sum total of one's experiences. Without feelings or memories, there can be no experiences. So even if there is an atman, the self is obliterated at death. The atman plays no role of any kind whatsoever. It is just a stranger we carry with us through our lives for no rhyme or reason.

Isn't it more scientific to simply regard one's neighbor as only speaking as if they had experiences? Then there is nothing to be "obliterated at death" because it was nothing to be *like* that person in the first place. The evolutionary behaviors of "talking about experiences" are caused by the material necessities of the forces acting on the dumb particles that make up that person.

I don't see any reason to fear obliteration on death. It happens to everyone. Without exception. It the most routine and guaranteed thing in life. We die. So why not simply take it as such? What is the big deal, other than our own instinct for self preservation creating the fear of death in us? If we can look beyond it, death is just the end of life. We go back to non-existence just as we were non-existent for almost 14 billion years. We didn't do too badly then. So why worry about the after?

[OuterLimits]

In which case, the atman never was the self in the first place, temporal or otherwise. The self is the sum total of one's experiences. Without feelings or memories, there can be no experiences. So even if there is an atman, the self is obliterated at death. The atman plays no role of any kind whatsoever. It is just a stranger we carry with us through our lives for no rhyme or reason.

Isn't it more scientific to simply regard one's neighbor as only speaking as if they had experiences? Then there is nothing to be "obliterated at death" because it was nothing to be *like* that person in the first place. The evolutionary behaviors of "talking about experiences" are caused by the material necessities of the forces acting on the dumb particles that make up that person.

I don't see any reason to fear obliteration on death. It happens to everyone. Without exception. It the most routine and guaranteed thing in life. We die. So why not simply take it as such? What is the big deal, other than our own instinct for self preservation creating the fear of death in us? If we can look beyond it, death is just the end of life. We go back to non-existence just as we were non-existent for almost 14 billion years. We didn't do too badly then. So why worry about the after?

Don't be afraid of your neighbor not having sentience. It's perfectly natural.

[sthitapragya]

Don't be afraid of your neighbor not having sentience. It's perfectly natural.

I am sorry but I don't think I understand. Why would anyone be afraid of something like that?

[OuterLimits]

Don't be afraid of your neighbor not having sentience. It's perfectly natural.

I am sorry but I don't think I understand. Why would anyone be afraid of something like that?

If you are dedicated to focusing exclusively on the evidence of the senses, you will find that your neighbor has behaviors but no experiences.

[Belinda]

OuterLimits wrote:

If you are dedicated to focusing exclusively on the evidence of the senses, you will find that your neighbor has behaviors but no experiences.

That is true . It illustrates how solipsism is incompatible with life as social animals. It shows how scepticism, despite its merits as a strategy for living, has limits.

[sthitapragya]

If you are dedicated to focusing exclusively on the evidence of the senses, you will find that your neighbor has behaviors but no experiences.

But humans also have the capacity for empathy. So we can get a very good idea of what the other person is experiencing by using our personal experience as a guide. I believe that is pretty basic. It is impossible for a rational mind to ever believe that another human has only behaviours and no experiences.

[OuterLimits]

OuterLimits wrote:

If you are dedicated to focusing exclusively on the evidence of the senses, you will find that your neighbor has behaviors but no experiences.

That is true . It illustrates how solipsism is incompatible with life as social animals. It shows how scepticism, despite its merits as a strategy for living, has limits.

That would all be true for you even if there were no other minds. You are not attempting to hide the purely emotional reasons for regarding other people as having experiences.

Do you have sources of information other than the sciences & the scientific method?

[OuterLimits]

If you are dedicated to focusing exclusively on the evidence of the senses, you will find that your neighbor has behaviors but no experiences.

But humans also have the capacity for empathy. So we can get a very good idea of what the other person is experiencing by using our personal experience as a guide. I believe that is pretty basic. It is impossible for a rational mind to ever believe that another human has only behaviours and no experiences.

One could say that humans have a *capacity* for empathy - or you could just as easily say that humans have a *tendency* toward empathy. In fact the latter is more observational, and less problematic from a deterministic perspective.

At one point, among many populations, it was "impossible for a rational mind to ever believe" that the world was anything than flat, that it was not created by God(s), and that after death, your soul would not be judged by them.

What you are describing as just "common sense" - as you are skeptical of skepticism - is just "a life unexamined" - it is simply the "zeitgeist".

[sthitapragya]

If you are dedicated to focusing exclusively on the evidence of the senses, you will find that your neighbor has behaviors but no experiences.

But humans also have the capacity for empathy. So we can get a very good idea of what the other person is experiencing by using our personal experience as a guide. I believe that is pretty basic. It is impossible for a rational mind to ever believe that another human has only behaviours and no experiences.

At one point, among many populations, it was "impossible for a rational mind to ever believe" that the world was anything than flat, that it was not created by God(s), and that after death, your soul would not be judged by them.

What you are describing as just "common sense" - as you are skeptical of skepticism - is just "a life unexamined" - it is simply the "zeitgeist".

Well, then this applies more to you than to me. Actually it does not apply to either one of us. What you are saying is something you need to prove. From all the available data, we can very safely conclude that humans have behaviours and experiences. If you think otherwise, I think the burden of proof is on you, unless it some thing like belief in God where one has to experience through some "higher consciousness."

After proving it, you can safely say, "I told you so." I will agree that I was wrong.

Also, I don't understand where we are going or what we are discussing. I can make out that you want to prove me wrong about something, but I have not clue what it is. So if you could enlighten me on that I would be greatly obliged.

[Belinda]

OuterLimits wrote:

That would all be true for you even if there were no other minds. You are not attempting to hide the purely emotional reasons for regarding other people as having experiences.

Do you have sources of information other than the sciences & the scientific method?

No, I have no other empirical evidence. All I have in addition to the sciences and the scientific method is theory which in my case, and in the cases of most people, is founded upon ancient traditions of people regarding other people as experiencers. I support this tradition with the reasonable theory that if people did not regard others as experiencers they would have died out or else become unrecognisable as humans. Humans are social.

[OuterLimits]

OuterLimits wrote:

That would all be true for you even if there were no other minds. You are not attempting to hide the purely emotional reasons for regarding other people as having experiences.

Do you have sources of information other than the sciences & the scientific method?

No, I have no other empirical evidence. All I have in addition to the sciences and the scientific method is theory which in my case, and in the cases of most people, is founded upon ancient traditions of people regarding other people as experiencers. I support this tradition with the reasonable theory that if people did not regard others as experiencers they would have died out or else become unrecognisable as humans. Humans are social.

If humans are social physical survival machines, then all that is required for them to continue to exist is for them to "act as if" others are experiencers. The actual experience is not required.

[OuterLimits]

OuterLimits wrote:

That would all be true for you even if there were no other minds. You are not attempting to hide the purely emotional reasons for regarding other people as having experiences.

Do you have sources of information other than the sciences & the scientific method?

No, I have no other empirical evidence. All I have in addition to the sciences and the scientific method is theory which in my case, and in the cases of most people, is founded upon ancient traditions of people regarding other people as experiencers. I support this tradition with the reasonable theory that if people did not regard others as experiencers they would have died out or else become unrecognisable as humans. Humans are social.

Tradition didn't have reductionist physics. Of course you don't have to believe reductionist physics. Many people think they are conforming to modern scientific truth, but don't realize how many everyday realities do out the window...

[Belinda]

OuterLimits wrote:

That would all be true for you even if there were no other minds. You are not attempting to hide the purely emotional reasons for regarding other people as having experiences.

Do you have sources of information other than the sciences & the scientific method?

No, I have no other empirical evidence. All I have in addition to the sciences and the scientific method is theory which in my case, and in the cases of most people, is founded upon ancient traditions of people regarding other people as experiencers. I support this tradition with the reasonable theory that if people did not regard others as experiencers they would have died out or else become unrecognisable as humans. Humans are social.

If humans are social physical survival machines, then all that is required for them to continue to exist is for them to "act as if" others are experiencers. The actual experience is not required.

Yes, but I am an actual experiencer. It would be bizarre to believe that others are not brain-minds but are nothing but brains. Also I know from empirical scientific method + scientific theory that brains are in fact brain-minds. Brain-minds are such that they include that individuals are selves.

If individuals were not selves they would lack the conatus that is necessary for the social- individual dynamic that is peculiar to animals that have creative language i.e. excluding ants and bees whose language is not creative but solely social.

I am not saying, like Descartes, that animals other than humans lack minds. Those other animals are brain-minds who have brain-minds that differ from humans' in degrees not in kind.