Intrinsic Value

[Enmos]

Ok, so you say that the 'self' assumes it exists and not that the self is an assumption itself ?
That seems logical, I thought you meant otherwise. However, isn't it more probable that the 'self' insists it exists ?

Also, your view of the 'self' assuming it exists does not negate my view that the self is a construct of the brain. They can both be true at the same time

 

[wesmorris]

Ok, so you say that the 'self' assumes it exists and not that the self is an assumption itself?

Yah otherwise nothing to do the assuming. There is apparently some repository for experience and a thinker i know as "self", focusing more virtual time into just one moment than the moment itself comprises.

That seems logical, I thought you meant otherwise. However, isn't it more probable that the 'self' insists it exists ?

I told you... logically. Insist isn't a logical term, but effectively the same really, both the same affect.

Oh but yes in terms of function I agree. Here's the way I see it: The mind's abstract component renders a simple survival function into ego. Ego is self, ego insists self, self insists self.

Also, your view of the 'self' assuming it exists does not negate my view that the self is a construct of the brain.

Yah I didn't contradict you so there. Myeah, see.

They can both be true at the same time

Yah I'm just trying to set up a logical framework type thingy. To me in this context, assumption = axiom = definition. For they are all effectively arbitrary choices about things chosen as "factual" such that we can deduce other facts (utilize the transform that is logic).

 

[Gustav]

i say
your kids look like their mom
you got lucky, wes
imagine if they took after you

/shudders

i wish i had kids
i hear it changes ones life and gives it meaning

 

[wesmorris]

i say
your kids look like their mom

you got lucky, wes
imagine if they took after you

/shudders

zactly. tanks godz.

i wish i had kids
i hear it changes ones life and gives it meaning

yeah. they're enchanting. love those little bastards.

apple of my eyes and whatnot.

i'm honored to be their daddy.

 

[sniffy]

What I mean is that the brain functions in such a way that it creates this 'illusion' of the self. All the biochemical processes at it's basis are of course real. This is a commonly accepted theory.
The 'self' is a construct of the brain and very helpful in relating to oneself and others. I am convinced that at least all higher animals have a 'self'.

Wes how can the 'self' be an assumption ? How to actively assume anything without a 'self' ? I mean, who is doing the assuming if the 'self' itself is an assumption ? It doesn't seem to follow..

Aaaa now we are in Sniffy territory....
Sense of self? Brain/biochemical processes/arrived at by way of evolution (assisted by eye/language development?). I think some animals not only have 'self awareness' but also 'awareness of others', especially those like ourselves who are pack animals with an alloted place in the heirarchy.

I feel it is a mistake to underestimate the role of 'others' in shaping the self. Parents/guardians/siblings, if their are any, all help to shape our sense of self. But surely the self is not a fixed thing as we can be different 'selfs' to different people as well as to ourselves (!).

I am mindful of a recent news story of the father of a large family who suffered a severe brain trauma. He recovered physically but his family reported that he "wasn't himself". He had "turned" from a loving, caring and devoted family man into an aggressive, distant, loner. To the family there was little doubt the person they once knew had been replaced by a complete stranger even though he looked the same. And they were certainly in mourning. Clues here surely?

Wrong tree? Engage please.

 

[Enmos]

Aaaa now we are in Sniffy territory....
Sense of self? Brain/biochemical processes/arrived at by way of evolution (assisted by eye/language development?). I think some animals not only have 'self awareness' but also 'awareness of others', especially those like ourselves who are pack animals with an alloted place in the heirarchy.

I agree.

I feel it is a mistake to underestimate the role of 'others' in shaping the self. Parents/guardians/siblings, if their are any, all help to shape our sense of self. But surely the self is not a fixed thing as we can be different 'selfs' to different people as well as to ourselves (!).

I agree.
The self is constantly being 'reshaped', however the fact that is 'reshapes' means that, at the very least, it's potential was always there to begin with. This is because it is 'programmed' into our DNA to arise.
I say 'potential' here because, obviously, it isn't there in the early fetal stages. I don't know if there is any data indicating when it supposedly arises (probably not).

I am mindful of a recent news story of the father of a large family who suffered a severe brain trauma. He recovered physically but his family reported that he "wasn't himself". He had "turned" from a loving, caring and devoted family man into an aggressive, distant, loner. To the family there was little doubt the person they once knew had been replaced by a complete stranger even though he looked the same. And they were certainly in mourning. Clues here surely?

It is evidence that certain brain structures help to give rise to the 'self'. If one or more are damaged or destroyed it will change the 'self', the 'self' gets damaged.
Brain structures initially arise through genetic expression but are sensitive to environmental influence. All we can realistically say is that the potential of the 'self' is predetermined in the genetic code and so in the brain. However, I would be surprised if the development of the 'self' could be fully suppressed by any environmental influence.

Same wavelength ?

 

[Enmos]

Yah otherwise nothing to do the assuming. There is apparently some repository for experience and a thinker i know as "self", focusing more virtual time into just one moment than the moment itself comprises.

I told you... logically. Insist isn't a logical term, but effectively the same really, both the same affect.

Oh but yes in terms of function I agree. Here's the way I see it: The mind's abstract component renders a simple survival function into ego. Ego is self, ego insists self, self insists self.

Yah I didn't contradict you so there. Myeah, see.

Yah I'm just trying to set up a logical framework type thingy. To me in this context, assumption = axiom = definition. For they are all effectively arbitrary choices about things chosen as "factual" such that we can deduce other facts (utilize the transform that is logic).

Ok, seems we agree on this stuff then

 

[wesmorris]

2. Subjective reality exists, this is the reality as we perceive it. Subjective reality is a representation of objective reality by our minds and impaired by our senses. The brain for instance fills in things, that it thinks are missing, from experience.

A pretty rudimentary representation thereof indeed, but that it is a representation of it really introduces some interesting things about "reality" IMO. Consider that "in physical reality" there is no real possiblity of "representation", as it necessarily implies some object to differentiate two objects from one another abstractly, necessarily bringing to a model of objective reality the very real abstract component. In "physical reality", there are no objects... as objects have been classified abstractly, implying directly a "space" in which such a phenomenon can occur. This in turn leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "self" (an abstract component), and all that self renders "real" in its processing of experience - is indeed part of reality, but "reality" consists of something that isn't generally accounted for by "physical reality".

Genius or what? Lol. Okay yeah nevermind.

Bah I'm not sure what I just said the effort cleaned my slate.

edit: well upon rechecking it makes sense to me. *shrug*

 

[wesmorris]

And the notion of the abstract itself to me becomes sort of an incarnation, rather perhaps a direct consequence of assuming self. lol. sometimes I think in titles and "consequences of self" sounded like a cool name for some document, now it looks stupid to me. Gah I hate that.

 

[Gustav]

i say
why am i happy all of a sudden?
i have not read exchange but.....
what?

 

[wesmorris]

i say
why am i happy all of a sudden?
i have not read exchange but.....
what?

I figured it was what. Hehe. Well I take it from the happiness that it was at least an entertaining what. Myah.

 

[Gustav]

ahh
a bogus exchange

What I mean is that the brain functions in such a way that it creates this 'illusion' of the self. All the biochemical processes at it's basis are of course real. This is a commonly accepted theory.
The 'self' is a construct of the brain and very helpful in relating to oneself and others. I am convinced that at least all higher animals have a 'self'.

citations please

wes
when you agree with this, do you not lay waste to years of postage?

 

[Enmos]

ahh
a bogus exchange



citations please

wes
when you agree with this, do you not lay waste to years of postage?

Sadly, I can't find any
Maybe Wes can be of assistance ?

 

[wesmorris]

wes
when you agree with this, do you not lay waste to years of postage?

I responded to that stuff in a way that seemed consistent with my years of posting. Pehaps you can explain where I'm all laying waste to shit and shit. To me, post 128 pretty much brought together years of posting, or perhaps more concisely regurgitates it. Perhaps I've glossed. Expose.

 

[wesmorris]

EDIT: Gustav...

What I mean is that the brain functions in such a way that it creates this 'illusion' of the self.

I agree with this sans a single word "illusion", but allowed it for the purposes of leading to something more - as noted in post 128. I softly noted my objection in my original response.

All the biochemical processes at it's basis are of course real.

It would seem to me that indeed these processes are "real", yes.

This is a commonly accepted theory.

I don't see much theory in the above sans the single word "illusion". Basides that, doesn't seem theoretical (insides a model with a framework starting with self). The brain seems to need to exist for a self to exist. And it seems that brains have chemical processes.

The 'self' is a construct of the brain and very helpful in relating to oneself and others.

I might reject the term "construct", but while mildly distasteful to me, I don't see it as incorrect - merely a matter of flavor... as any "abstract" can be seen as a "construct" to me.

I am convinced that at least all higher animals have a 'self'.

And as I noted earlier, I don't necessarily agree with this, as I think they have awareness but could lack the abstract capacity for "self".

 

[Enmos]

I agree with this sans a single word "illusion", but allowed it for the purposes of leading to something more - as noted in post 128. I softly noted my objection in my original response.

It would seem to me that indeed these processes are "real", yes.

Hmm well I can't think of another word. But maybe you have a preferred term of your own ? I put it between quotes because I realize it isn't the perfect term in this matter.

I don't see much theory in the above sans the single word "illusion". Basides that, doesn't seem theoretical (insides a model with a framework starting with self). The brain seems to need to exist for a self to exist. And it seems that brains have chemical processes.

Uhm? I don't think we understand each other.. What is unclear to you ?

I might reject the term "construct", but while mildly distasteful to me, I don't see it as incorrect - merely a matter of flavor... as any "abstract" can be seen as a "construct" to me.

I find the term abstract a bit vague in this discussion. However, it seems you know what you are talking about, so I'll adopt it if you say it is similar.
What are the differences between the two terms as far as you are concerned ?

And as I noted earlier, I don't necessarily agree with this, as I think they have awareness but could lack the abstract capacity for "self".

Maybe better to let this one go. It has no bearing on the discussion and we aren't going to solve it either.

 

[wesmorris]

Enmos:

I just redid it for gustav. That was specifically to address his question. I didn't intend to rehash it. If you want to go back over it, fine... but if you wouldn't mind addressing 128 unless it's just too "out there".

 

[Gustav]

if materialistic explanation is adopted as an explanation for conciouness, do you not think a lot of discussions in phil would be rendered moot?

 

[Gustav]

a priori...a brain. something physical, something real, something objective

 

[Enmos]

Oh uhm, I thought I responded to this already... oh well

Consider that "in physical reality" there is no real possiblity of "representation", as it necessarily implies some object to differentiate two objects from one another abstractly, necessarily bringing to a model of objective reality the very real abstract component.

What exactly do you mean with "physical reality" ? It sounds an awful lot like what I mean with objective reality. I will assume it so.
1. Consider that "in physical reality" there is no real possiblity of "representation"
> I agree.
2. as it necessarily implies some object to differentiate two objects from one another abstractly
> What objects are you talking about here ? Random ones ? Do you mean general perception ?
3. necessarily bringing to a model of objective reality the very real abstract component.
> This I don't get.

I will try to 'translate' your words to how I understand them (please correct me):
> 1. In objective reality there is no such thing as subjectivity,
> 2. because to differentiate between two objects subjectivity is needed,
> 3. meaning that subjectivity does after all has a place in objective reality.

This, of course, isn't right lol

In "physical reality", there are no objects... as objects have been classified abstractly, implying directly a "space" in which such a phenomenon can occur. This in turn leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "self" (an abstract component), and all that self renders "real" in its processing of experience - is indeed part of reality, but "reality" consists of something that isn't generally accounted for by "physical reality".

1. In "physical reality", there are no objects... as objects have been classified abstractly
- I agree.
2. implying directly a "space" in which such a phenomenon can occur.
- You will need to clarify that for me.
3. This in turn leads us to the inevitable conclusion that "self" (an abstract component), and all that self renders "real" in its processing of experience - is indeed part of reality
- I agree, provided that you mean that subjective reality is real but no part of objective reality.
4. but "reality" consists of something that isn't generally accounted for by "physical reality".
- I agree.

I will try to 'translate' your words to how I understand them (please correct me):
> 1. In objective reality there are no objects as defined by man,
> 2. ?.
> 3. This means that the 'self' (a subjective concept), and all it renders 'real' in its processing of experience is a subjective reality,
> 4. subjective reality is not accounted for in objective reality.

This is not what you meant.. surely.

Wes I have tried, but in all honesty.. I don't get it