A challenge to the modern scientific view of the self.

[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

[ken]

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

Is the body being the self really being taught? I have never heard it consciously taught that way, and I hope that is not the case. There is no scientific proof that the self is the body. That is just assumed to be the case, by most.

One flaw I found in your words is saying "my" body. Unless you know for sure who the 'I' is, then expect to be challenged about the "my" in "my body". I would challenge you on how much you actually know about who 'I' am.

2. you use the word 'somebody'. 'Body' in some-body is subtly saying the body is self again. Saying 'some body' is just out of habit that people have been saying for ages.

3. a human body truthfully is never living nor dying. Every physical thing comes into existence and then passes on, into some other physical thing. The human body can be pumping blood and breathing but even when that stops it decays and breaks down into some thing else. For example as fertilizer if place directly into the ground and being the energy/source for further things to then come into existence.

4 a 'person' is NOT eternal. There is A being who is eternal, but an individual person only exists because of an individual body. There is ONE Being who is eternal that lives within every body on the deepest of levels, but on a much more superficial level lives one individual person. Every person is uniquely different from every other person just like every body is uniquely different. A person comes into existence with and through the five senses the human body experiences of the "world", and then after a body stops breathing and pumping blood this person will be transferred through and into other bodies, but the One Being IS always in ALL bodies. The Being is the One and only Open Mind. The 'person' is only the unique thoughts (and emotions) within a unique human body. The Mind knows, whereas, the brain, where thoughts gather, only thinks, it knows.

What I have asked previously, but this is not to say it is an irrefutable way, is to ask, if an arm or a leg was cut off from the body, then would you be less of a person. If not, then how much of the body is actually the self? As you already know the body is NOT the self, but the body actually makes 'you', you. A 'self' is always being created from the conception of the human body and brain until that body stops breathing and pumping blood. I just call the 'self' the invisible and non-physical thoughts and emotional feelings within the body. Disregarding feelings for now 'thoughts' themselves is the person who lives within the body - the 'you'. Thoughts/the person who is continually changing within the human body is being created always through the five senses.

[FlashDangerpants]

You're sort of missing the point of levels of description. When Carl Sagan says that a person is a collection of chemicals or of atoms, he isn't saying that people have no properties or scope beyond those inherent to an amount of carbon and calcium dissolved in some water. So perhaps you aren't besting him in combat when you demonstrate that a person is not so.

It is true that you are, under one level of description a collection of water and calcium and organic molecules. Just as the Mona Lisa is just some flecks of paint on some wood, and the US Constitution is a bunch of ink on some parchment. You could continue to describe those physical attributes in complete detail listing each and every atom within those objects, and still nobody would concede that the description contained the most important details of what those objects are. I am fairly sure Sagan never intended for you to have the impression that he was confused about this.

The stuff about Crick is also, well, it's misrepresentation. You can read Gilbert Ryle and Danniel Dennet for a fuller account of that sort of thing. I am not a fan of Dennett myself, but I wouldn't begin to imagine I had disproved such theories with nothing but an objection that illusions require an individual perspective which can be fooled.

As for whether you really are right about everything and merely looking for the best way to express your perfect understanding... I think you would be wise to temper such boasting for now. Between Dennet et al and the Yoga Masters lies a constellation of other alternatives you have failed to address. so even if you do defeat Crick and Sagan, you haven't proven anything much about immaterial persons in the process.

[Conde Lucanor]

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 Carl Sagan pointed out in that quote was that we, living beings, are made of matter. We're made of star stuff, he often said. That's just a basic notion from which the search for explanations of the real causes behind living processes should departure. It's not meant to be an all-encompassing explanation that deals once and for all and exhausts the possibilities of living beings. It could not be understood that way, given the complexities of development in organisms, still all made only of matter, but showing important differences among them. No scientist will confuse an amoeba with Carl Sagan. So, your so called "modern scientists' view of the self" is just the regular straw man fallacy.

[Greta]

Carl Sagan was a cosmologist and not in the business of defining the self, a question in which he would have surely deferred to psychologists (just as a psychologist would defer to Sagan as regards questions of space).

As eloquently put above by FlashDP, Sagan wasn't making a limiting statement "We are ONLY made from star stuff", only making the connection between star dynamics and existence.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.



I have three questions for the original poster:


1) Is that a picture of you next to your audio link?


2) Could you condense your lecture into a simple, easy to understand statement or two?


3) WHY would you attempt to steal over 30 minutes of a fellow member's time if you are not going to spend 30 seconds to maintain your thread?




Rude. Rude would be my initial criticism of your presentation of your thread. Selfish. Selfish & disrespectful would be my personally scientific view of you at this point.











.

[Terrapin Station]

The way I can perhaps help is that no matter your argument against what you're calling the "modern, scientific view of the self," I can present an argument against your stance, because I hold the "modern, scientific view of the self."

I'll just go over one point at a time:

"The cells that make up my body now didn't make up my body five years ago . . . and won't five years from now" -- correct, you are actually dynamic. You're not static. 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. So that's not an argument against the view you're wanting to argue against. The mistaken view is that identities (both personal identity and the broader sense of ontological identity in general) do not change over time. They do change with time. (Which makes sense, since time IS just (processual) change or motion.) What makes you "you" over time is that you are causally, contiguously connected with the previous states of you. Again, this isn't just the case with personal identity. It's the case with everything extant, including your computer, the desk your computer is sitting on, the Earth itself, etc.

[ypc]

I have three questions for the original poster:


1) Is that a picture of you next to your audio link?


2) Could you condense your lecture into a simple, easy to understand statement or two?


3) WHY would you attempt to steal over 30 minutes of a fellow member's time if you are not going to spend 30 seconds to maintain your thread?




Rude. Rude would be my initial criticism of your presentation of your thread. Selfish. Selfish & disrespectful would be my personally scientific view of you at this point.

1. No
2. The point is that the self is different from the body. the self exists and is constant, the body is temporary. I was simply pointing out flaws in Francis Cricks and Carl Sagan's statements.
3. sorry been busy but im here now
4 and yes i can be selfish and disrespectful sometimes...im sorry

[ypc]

ypc wrote:
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



Is the body being the self really being taught? I have never heard it consciously taught that way, and I hope that is not the case. There is no scientific proof that the self is the body. That is just assumed to be the case, by most.

One flaw I found in your words is saying "my" body. Unless you know for sure who the 'I' is, then expect to be challenged about the "my" in "my body". I would challenge you on how much you actually know about who 'I' am.

2. you use the word 'somebody'. 'Body' in some-body is subtly saying the body is self again. Saying 'some body' is just out of habit that people have been saying for ages.

3. a human body truthfully is never living nor dying. Every physical thing comes into existence and then passes on, into some other physical thing. The human body can be pumping blood and breathing but even when that stops it decays and breaks down into some thing else. For example as fertilizer if place directly into the ground and being the energy/source for further things to then come into existence.

4 a 'person' is NOT eternal. There is A being who is eternal, but an individual person only exists because of an individual body. There is ONE Being who is eternal that lives within every body on the deepest of levels, but on a much more superficial level lives one individual person. Every person is uniquely different from every other person just like every body is uniquely different. A person comes into existence with and through the five senses the human body experiences of the "world", and then after a body stops breathing and pumping blood this person will be transferred through and into other bodies, but the One Being IS always in ALL bodies. The Being is the One and only Open Mind. The 'person' is only the unique thoughts (and emotions) within a unique human body. The Mind knows, whereas, the brain, where thoughts gather, only thinks, it knows.

What I have asked previously, but this is not to say it is an irrefutable way, is to ask, if an arm or a leg was cut off from the body, then would you be less of a person. If not, then how much of the body is actually the self? As you already know the body is NOT the self, but the body actually makes 'you', you. A 'self' is always being created from the conception of the human body and brain until that body stops breathing and pumping blood. I just call the 'self' the invisible and non-physical thoughts and emotional feelings within the body. Disregarding feelings for now 'thoughts' themselves is the person who lives within the body - the 'you'. Thoughts/the person who is continually changing within the human body is being created always through the five senses.

1. Yes i hold to the conclusion that the Body is the possession of the self and not the self. that was basically the point of my lecture which which I admit was too brief to fully explain the point. and i welcome challlenges to the viewpoint.

2. yes you are correct...thats no good use of english..i should have said "somone"

3. Yes the body is actually always dead matter. when the self inhabits the body the matter making up the body behaves against its own nature ie. does not follow 2nd law of thermodynamics. and becomes more and more complex rather then breaking down into simpler forms of matter. for example if you take a knife and carve your name into a desk... the desk will not heal itself...if you do the same thing on your arm it will but only when you are in it. When the self leaves the body one of the symptoms is that the matter goes back its natural state and breaks down the same way that any other matter breaks down.

4. IF you truly believed that there was only one being then you wouldnt feel the need to convince others of your viewpoint because you would know that you are them.. the very fact that you are trying to communicate something to someone else shows me that you dont actually accept that i am you and you are me...it shows me that you accept me as an individual distinct from yourself. further more.. if you think that you are all beings and everyone else thinks the same way...then who is it? who is the center? am i part of your dream or are you part of mine?

5. If the person is the thoughts and feelings then we must ask who is watching the thoughts and feelings? thoughts and feelings are observed by someone therefore they are not that someone. this is a long subject but thoughts and feelings are distinct from the individual self. just like a person watches a tv which is seperate from you...you watch the passing show of thoughts and emotions as they pass by.
there is a very brief explanation here...https://soundcloud.com/user-255793295-8 ... ananta-das

And thank you for the intelligent questions here Ken

[ypc]

What Carl Sagan pointed out in that quote was that we, living beings, are made of matter. We're made of star stuff, he often said. That's just a basic notion from which the search for explanations of the real causes behind living processes should departure. It's not meant to be an all-encompassing explanation that deals once and for all and exhausts the possibilities of living beings. It could not be understood that way, given the complexities of development in organisms, still all made only of matter, but showing important differences among them. No scientist will confuse an amoeba with Carl Sagan. So, your so called "modern scientists' view of the self" is just the regular straw man fallacy.

the point was that He was saying that we are made of star stuff. Im saying that we are not...that star stuff is just making up the vehicle and not the self. just if you were driving in your car you would not say that you are made of metal, glass and rubber. its something you are in, but not who you are

[ypc]

The way I can perhaps help is that no matter your argument against what you're calling the "modern, scientific view of the self," I can present an argument against your stance, because I hold the "modern, scientific view of the self."

I'll just go over one point at a time:

"The cells that make up my body now didn't make up my body five years ago . . . and won't five years from now" -- correct, you are actually dynamic. You're not static. 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. So that's not an argument against the view you're wanting to argue against. The mistaken view is that identities (both personal identity and the broader sense of ontological identity in general) do not change over time. They do change with time. (Which makes sense, since time IS just (processual) change or motion.) What makes you "you" over time is that you are causally, contiguously connected with the previous states of you. Again, this isn't just the case with personal identity. It's the case with everything extant, including your computer, the desk your computer is sitting on, the Earth itself, etc.

sorry i fail to see your point...my point is that the body and mind are constantly changing...but the self is the observer of these constant changes. you were the same person you were 5 years ago...but the body is completely gone...if you for example started to chop off body parts, you will experience that you exist despite missing that particular body part. for example if you cut off your arm right now...it didnt happen gradually it would happen all of a sudden...you would experience that you are still a complete person. but you just have less of a vehicle to work with...you would not feel that you are diminished...only your vehicle. you would be observing this just as you observed the gradual changes over time.

[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

Is the body being the self really being taught? I have never heard it consciously taught that way, and I hope that is not the case. There is no scientific proof that the self is the body. That is just assumed to be the case, by most.

One flaw I found in your words is saying "my" body. Unless you know for sure who the 'I' is, then expect to be challenged about the "my" in "my body". I would challenge you on how much you actually know about who 'I' am.

2. you use the word 'somebody'. 'Body' in some-body is subtly saying the body is self again. Saying 'some body' is just out of habit that people have been saying for ages.

3. a human body truthfully is never living nor dying. Every physical thing comes into existence and then passes on, into some other physical thing. The human body can be pumping blood and breathing but even when that stops it decays and breaks down into some thing else. For example as fertilizer if place directly into the ground and being the energy/source for further things to then come into existence.

4 a 'person' is NOT eternal. There is A being who is eternal, but an individual person only exists because of an individual body. There is ONE Being who is eternal that lives within every body on the deepest of levels, but on a much more superficial level lives one individual person. Every person is uniquely different from every other person just like every body is uniquely different. A person comes into existence with and through the five senses the human body experiences of the "world", and then after a body stops breathing and pumping blood this person will be transferred through and into other bodies, but the One Being IS always in ALL bodies. The Being is the One and only Open Mind. The 'person' is only the unique thoughts (and emotions) within a unique human body. The Mind knows, whereas, the brain, where thoughts gather, only thinks, it knows.

What I have asked previously, but this is not to say it is an irrefutable way, is to ask, if an arm or a leg was cut off from the body, then would you be less of a person. If not, then how much of the body is actually the self? As you already know the body is NOT the self, but the body actually makes 'you', you. A 'self' is always being created from the conception of the human body and brain until that body stops breathing and pumping blood. I just call the 'self' the invisible and non-physical thoughts and emotional feelings within the body. Disregarding feelings for now 'thoughts' themselves is the person who lives within the body - the 'you'. Thoughts/the person who is continually changing within the human body is being created always through the five senses.

1. Yes i hold to the conclusion that the Body is the possession of the self and not the self. that was basically the point of my lecture which which I admit was too brief to fully explain the point. and i welcome challlenges to the viewpoint.

2. yes you are correct...thats no good use of english..i should have said "somone"

3. Yes the body is actually always dead matter. when the self inhabits the body the matter making up the body behaves against its own nature ie. does not follow 2nd law of thermodynamics. and becomes more and more complex rather then breaking down into simpler forms of matter. for example if you take a knife and carve your name into a desk... the desk will not heal itself...if you do the same thing on your arm it will but only when you are in it. When the self leaves the body one of the symptoms is that the matter goes back its natural state and breaks down the same way that any other matter breaks down.

4. IF you truly believed that there was only one being then you wouldnt feel the need to convince others of your viewpoint because you would know that you are them.. the very fact that you are trying to communicate something to someone else shows me that you dont actually accept that i am you and you are me...it shows me that you accept me as an individual distinct from yourself. further more.. if you think that you are all beings and everyone else thinks the same way...then who is it? who is the center? am i part of your dream or are you part of mine?

5. If the person is the thoughts and feelings then we must ask who is watching the thoughts and feelings? thoughts and feelings are observed by someone therefore they are not that someone. this is a long subject but thoughts and feelings are distinct from the individual self. just like a person watches a tv which is seperate from you...you watch the passing show of thoughts and emotions as they pass by.
there is a very brief explanation here...https://soundcloud.com/user-255793295-8 ... ananta-das

And thank you for the intelligent questions here Ken

[ypc]

sorry guys...im starting to learn how to use these forums...im new to it...

[Wyman]

The way I can perhaps help is that no matter your argument against what you're calling the "modern, scientific view of the self," I can present an argument against your stance, because I hold the "modern, scientific view of the self."

I'll just go over one point at a time:

"The cells that make up my body now didn't make up my body five years ago . . . and won't five years from now" -- correct, you are actually dynamic. You're not static. 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. So that's not an argument against the view you're wanting to argue against. The mistaken view is that identities (both personal identity and the broader sense of ontological identity in general) do not change over time. They do change with time. (Which makes sense, since time IS just (processual) change or motion.) What makes you "you" over time is that you are causally, contiguously connected with the previous states of you. Again, this isn't just the case with personal identity. It's the case with everything extant, including your computer, the desk your computer is sitting on, the Earth itself, etc.

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.

[Wyman]

Carl Sagan was a cosmologist and not in the business of defining the self, a question in which he would have surely deferred to psychologists (just as a psychologist would defer to Sagan as regards questions of space).

As eloquently put above by FlashDP, Sagan wasn't making a limiting statement "We are ONLY made from star stuff", only making the connection between star dynamics and existence.

If Sagan was a true materialist (I'm not that familiar with him), then he was making a limiting statement. And many scientists would make such statements. The party line is: we are only really made of star stuff, but psychologists and other 'soft' scientists can describe this 'stuff' in other terms if they like. When they make up objects such as 'mind' or 'self' or 'cognitive functions,' they are working in an 'effective' model. They are positing entities that do not exist in order to explain complex systems that we do not yet have the capability to analyze in terms of quantum theory.