For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No. Self is simply what you are. You in fact experience your self (existence) indirectly through consciousness by experiencing your actions.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
You're kind-of asking, what is the use of consciousness? I think, self, in the way you used it, means consciousness; our ability to see ourselves.
It is true consciousness; self-consciousness is not necessarily a trait of being human. And you have asked a good question.
Self-consciousness is something that can be developed.It's a strange burden and yet it can make your life worth living.
.
But how could a human being exist without input?bahman wrote: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?
Can you give me an example of an activity that you don't function?Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
Well, yes & no. If YOU think that you are a function then that's fine. That is good for YOU. That is what YOU believe the self to be.
Many people believe that they find self or identify self as consciousness; self-consciousness. More of a state-of-being rather than a function.
Kind-of like two major schools of basic philosophy.
...................................................................
.
We are questioning self and not input.ken wrote:But how could a human being exist without input?bahman wrote: 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?
If a human body did not have any of the five senses, which is what allows Y (input), then would it be anything much more than just a lump of meat, with organs, for lack of a better name?
How could a human body function without Y? What could it actually do?
It can't, otherwise we would be philosophical zombies.bahman wrote: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?
But I asked you if a "self" could function without input?bahman wrote:We are questioning self and not input.ken wrote:But how could a human being exist without input?bahman wrote: 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?
If a human body did not have any of the five senses, which is what allows Y (input), then would it be anything much more than just a lump of meat, with organs, for lack of a better name?
How could a human body function without Y? What could it actually do?
The Self cannot even enter the equation ...Self doesn't need to. Self is already every function. Every function is animated by Self.bahman wrote: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?
Great post. Loved it.Bill Wiltrack wrote:.
The intellectual function is an example of a function of being human. The narration that is in your head is a GREAT example of how the intellectual function works. The words you type here is a reflection of your intellectual function.
Consciousness, in ALL of it's various forms is an example of state of being. One's consciousness just is. Consciousness alone does not perform any function itself. Although some individuals believe that we, to some degree, are able to affect our states of consciousness.
Hope that helps.
.
There is no functioning you. And yet functioning cannot function without you. Therefore you are one with the function. But the you is a reaction.bahman wrote:
Can you give me an example of an activity that you don't function?
The Self is a fiction..let me explain why...bahman wrote:
No. Self is simply what you are. You in fact experience your self (existence) indirectly through consciousness by experiencing your actions.
Philosophical zombie refers to being which cannot experience anything. Here we are talking about being who don't have self.Ginkgo wrote:It can't, otherwise we would be philosophical zombies.bahman wrote: 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?
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]