The self - beyond the facts

[Amorphos]

The self - beyond the facts

if you want proof, you wont find it in the facts – however you will find it because of the facts!
Firstly we must find if there is such a thing as 'you' the spirit'/soul, but we cannot find it by looking at the physiological facts. Let us take a quick trip into our minds...

there have been operations where certain parts of the brain have been removed, but whatever part you remove 'you' are not it! Even if you remove a whole one side/hemisphere of the brain, you are still whole – but simply with less functionality. If you put that half in another person, they would share your memories and brain functions of that half, but they would not be you! In fact it is postulated that if it were possible to remove your brain entirely, piece by piece, then you would always remain with the body and the parts of the brain still connected, until the brain was totally removed and you would remain in the body. Actually you would leave the 'vehicle of the body' long before all that [i.e. Die], but the point is that; we know as much as we need to know about the body, brain and electro-magnetism, to know that these things do not constitute 'you' nor the 'mind' nor thought itself. The meatware simply gives the mind an apparatus and set of tools with which to operate in the world, if they are reduced then our functionality is reduced, yet is it not strange that we always still remain whole in terms of the actual 'you'.
Thus we may start with the idea that this 'you' is what we are talking about as concerns the 'soul' and the self, and that it is not physical nor has boundaries as such. From this we can see the same thing in universal form as what we may call 'god'.
Just as you 'exist', so does the universal form of this entity, the universe is then its 'body'. If we can think the infinite, then our minds must have infinite capacity, then look at the plurality of minds; they all have the same infinity! What then is the collective being? A universal 'you' entity?

[DarkKnight]

Do you have any sources? I find it hard to believe that we can transplant half of someone's brain into another person without killing them. And anyways, how do you define 'you'. If someone gets permanant amnesia are they the same 'you'?

[bdh]

Do you have any sources? I find it hard to believe that we can transplant half of someone's brain into another person without killing them. And anyways, how do you define 'you'. If someone gets permanant amnesia are they the same 'you'?

I think he just means consistency of identity.

Just as you 'exist', so does the universal form of this entity, the universe is then its 'body'. If we can think the infinite, then our minds must have infinite capacity, then look at the plurality of minds; they all have the same infinity! What then is the collective being? A universal 'you' entity?

What you're referring to is the fact that human beings aren't 'truly' physical beings. Every molecule in your body is replaced over time such that a person is composed of completely different materials after a period of several years. Yet, it is still the same person. People aren't the physical material they are made of. Rather, human beings are just data describing how certain kinds of molecules(it doesn't matter which specific molecules provided they are the same) should be arranged. Over time then, an individual is just the net change of that description(in the environment of course). Really, it just goes to show how most things can be described mathematically. Interestingly enough, the entire world could just be a computer.

[Simetrical]

there have been operations where certain parts of the brain have been removed, but whatever part you remove 'you' are not it! Even if you remove a whole one side/hemisphere of the brain, you are still whole – but simply with less functionality.

That's because the brain's functions are in large part decentralized. Much of the neural circuitry is fairly general-purpose. That said, if you remove the right parts, you'll certainly lose all your memory, or become permanently comatose, or whatever else you like.

we know as much as we need to know about the body, brain and electro-magnetism, to know that these things do not constitute 'you' nor the 'mind' nor thought itself.

There is no evidence to suggest that any function of the mind is not rooted in the nervous system, and much to suggest the contrary.

we always still remain whole in terms of the actual 'you'.

How do you determine whether someone retains their identity? Ask them? But ask them what?

If we can think the infinite, then our minds must have infinite capacity

Incorrect. Representations of something need not take up the same space as the thing itself. Your brain does not need to be the size of a car to contain a car, and this sentence need not be infinitely long to contain the word infinity. Certain case studies suggest that our brains have immense capacity for information storage, probably unlimited or close to it for any use that's currently practical, but that's not infinite (and in case you were wondering, most of us can't tap this capacity, and those few who can frequently experience difficulty sorting through memories and similar inconveniences).

I find it hard to believe that we can transplant half of someone's brain into another person without killing them.

You can't, with present technology. Sooner or later it will doubtless be possible, but I can't see what use it would be, and who knows how it could be integrated into a separately-developed neural network.

[Amorphos]

darknight

Do you have any sources

yes red wine sauce :tooth: , nah i was just reading a book by the philosopher nicolas fearn who states the same argument – although he comes to an altogether different conclusion.

I don't think too much of it is meant to be taken literally, there have been some interesting articles in scientific american about similar things but not as extreme as half brain transplants.

The argument is meant to be philosophical hence it is not in the science section!

Bdh,

Every molecule in your body is replaced over time such that a person is composed of completely different materials after a period of several years

thats exactly the argument i was reading about! Fearn thought that this meant there was no self, whereas i would say that these arguments show how the real you transcends the transient and physiological changes which occur in the world.

Interestingly enough, the entire world could just be a computer

hmm, i was thinking more along the lines of existence being composed of 'the thinker and the thought universe'! Similar in a way though – especially if you think of mathematics in a pythagorean sense, as i do.

Simetrical

That's because the brain's functions are in large part decentralized

i don't think that explains the existential nature of the self – not when you add it all up. There is a naturalised side to the argument – if you will, i.e. If we think of it in real terms – as the real person that 'you' are, when parts are removed that real you is still you! Disabled people are every bit the same as the rest of us in this way, the same goes for when your are in a coma or under anaesthetic – its all the same you essentially unchanging throughout!

There is no evidence to suggest that any function of the mind is not rooted in the nervous system, and much to suggest the contrary.

Absolutely! The brain gives the self functionality in this world, but when you are in a coma or having a spiritual experience, the essential you remains – it just cannot act in this world. That 'you' does however have many of the same capabilities as that which the brain 'mimics'.
Let us not forget the bio em aspect of the nature of thought, i feel that to much of science is done in the cold – so to say, we look at nerves in their physical form and it kinda blinds us to their other aspects/natures.

How do you determine whether someone retains their identity? Ask them? But ask them what?

By experiencing it for oneself

Representations of something need not take up the same space as the thing itself.

I am thinking in terms of capacity/ability/dextrosity, rather than volume! But infinity and thought are a whole other issue/thread really, i just touched upon it here. I will do a post on rudy ruckers; the 'infinite mindscape' concept one day.


Thanx for great replies chaps!

[Simetrical]

The brain gives the self functionality in this world, but when you are in a coma or having a spiritual experience, the essential you remains – it just cannot act in this world.

What's the difference between not existing, and existing but not being able to interact with anything?

By experiencing it for oneself

Is that the only way to learn about persistence of the self? If so, have you been in a coma, and if not, how do you know that the self persists during the coma?

[Amorphos]

What's the difference between not existing, and existing but not being able to interact with anything?

The way i see it the brain mimics the spirit, one cannot interact with the physical plain yet can think and interact with other plains or subtle levels of reality. Its like a hand unfolding, all the natures of the hand are there already, yet if it cannot open it cannot interact – like if you have a lobotomy or similar.

Genetically people can be born with a perfectly healthy body, born into a good family, yet still be depressive, self abusive or have other negative traits. This i see as simply being the esoteric self from one life transferred to another.

Is that the only way to learn about persistence of the self? If so, have you been in a coma, and if not, how do you know that the self persists during the coma?

I think there are other ways to learn about the self, we can look at medical accounts etc, but i do feel that there are future technologies for such things, and there are inverted deductive methods i.e. 'What it is not, it is' – as my argument is basically. Perhaps the field of psychology may reveal more as time goes by, but i am sure there is a science to it as yet to be uncovered, because our understanding of elecro-magnetism cant explain thought, just as light radiation entering the eyes cant explain sight – entirely.

oh and yes i have been in a coma before, had my drink spiked [i think] went off the rails, took lots of substances, nearly died, come around three days later and couldnt hold a spoon up - youth eh! [and bloody idiocy of myself and so called freinds ]