What is the "Self"? Who are you?

[Neil]

I wrote this post as part of another discussion on another messageboard, but I thought I'd run it by you guys to see what you think. It basically stems from the question "Who are you?" We often talk about looking for some sort of a "higher plane of existence." But it dawned upon me that perhaps our motivation behind our longing to find a deeper meaning to life is driven by our circumstances. I'll get to this later on. To an extent, I believe that who we are depends on who we are interacting with. It could be said that we all wear masks, hiding our true selves and presenting false personalities to the world. Often we even wear masks to fool ourselves as well as others. I think the concept of a "mask" is not perfect at describing our "selves", although it is maybe the easiest and best way of doing so. We are many things - we are sons, friends, lovers, ex-lovers, enemies, rivals, people to be used, to abused, etc etc. We don't actually have any solid SELF (I don't think). Only a collection of thougths and attitudes. The question "Who are you?" is impossible to answer objectively since it is entirely dependent on context and perspective. It is easier to answer it as "Who are you to this person or that person." This is something that troubles me. I feel "misunderstood." But even worse than that, I don't understand myself! But I try very hard to. I am as introspective as is humanly possible. This is unusual and (I dunno,) maybe unlealthy. But surely in order for you to understand the universe you must understand your self. As much as I feel "misunderstood", this could just be a way of me optimistically shielding myself from the fact that I am unpopular. E.g. "People think I am a loser but if they knew the real me they'd think I was fantastic!" However, that's not really a fact as such but an interpretation. I am too aware of this problem that I can't comfortably forumlate any identity of my own. When I meet people, I act the way people think I should act, or the way which at the time I believe will shed me in the best possible light in that situation. We all do this - i.e. making fun of authority figures to gain respect for our peers, or being especially nice to authority figures to gain status, or trying to be funny or charming or incredibly generous to attract friends or lovers. I am unbelievably self-conscious. I think most people who are intelligent enough to realise that how others perviece us is important or merely that we are being constantly asessed are self-conscious. Anyway, my current conclusion is that we actually have no real personalities. We are all just trying to fulfill the same goal of "being happy" by whatever means we see best. We just use different techniques based on our intelligence and assets (appearance, money etc). For example, I am a poor student so it is better for me to currently believe that happiness can be found by leading a simple buddhist-style life of few posessions and by "being." However, I'm also 19 and quite a fit guy so I also spend a great deal of time working out in order to increase my chances of getting *cough cough*. If I was a rock star with plenty of money I'd be snorting cocain and having lots of carnal pleasure. If I was ugly I'd probably dedicate my time to being a "funny guy" who is really friendly to everyone and a good listener. If I was a fat, unintelligent woman I would focus on getting a good husband who could pay the bills and have a child with him and life my life by proxy through the child's experiences which will hopefully be better than mine. If I was a shy adolescent with few real-world social skills but a knack for winning arguments I would dedicate my efforts in the pleasure gained from beating people in internet arguments and how great it is to be intellectually superior (not referring to ben there, you are not like this ..... usually ) If I was quite ugly and unintelligent but extremely good at golf I would focus on achieving hapiness from the competitive ego-driven pleasure of beating people at golf. If I was generally a bad person I would convince myself that there is no God and that there is no afterlife or accountability so that I could concentrate on finding short-term hapiness through self-gratification and greedy things. (You get what I'm saying.) Perhaps my belief in a higher plane of existence is a product of my inability to attain hapiness through other means - If I was able to get married and have children and pass my genes on to the next generation (which is generally regarded as the right thing to do) I wouldn't even care about this. Yes this is a bit of an odd topic but I dunno, if you feel like responding, that would be cool. *note: I really don't want this discussion to descend into a debate about the existence of a non-material soul or spirit. This is there is no broadly accepted evidence of such a thing. So anyway, whaddaya think? 8)

[Sassinator]

Neil - You bring about some interesting points however the idea that there is no self, but merely reflexions of what you have been exposed to in the form of life experiences (ppl, places, things) is absurd in view. Perhaps you have not yet defined who you are but to state that the outside world makes the person is not wholly true. While the people we are exposed to and the environments we're in can help us sort out where we want to be and how we want to be amongst and within them respectively they are not the only "definers" of who the self is. In other words, I don't believe were born tabula rasa (i.e. blank slate). There are certain things that are inate within each individual and it is the mix made up on the innate self and the experiences we have and the choices we make based on both of these that makes up the self. The self is not necessarily a completely solid entity, but rather it is fluid thing that adapts if and when necessary but generally not in its entirety. Finding yourself and what you want to do with your life, how you want to live, etc is a journey. That journey can take the first twenty odd years of your life or it can take longer but there is an individual person with a unique self under all of the other stuff. Sometimes that self hides under the hopes and dreams of a parent or other relative or friend or teacher or... but there comes a time when you have to realize that you need to live your life for you and make your own decisions. You need to live with yourself not only in the morning as the saying goes, but 24/7 and 365 days of the year so why the hell would you do something that wasn't in your best interest?

[Anelior]

What you are saying is akin to the way of thinking of Rene Descartes. You know, the "I think, therefore I am" guy. He basically postulated that the "self" is just the thinking process of the brain and it could be whatever the brain projected it to be. This projection is a big part of not only genetically predisposed neural patterning but also environmental conditioning. Therefore the "self" is the result of being what we want to be and what others want us to be. It is dynamic and always changing. I have found that there are two different kinds of "self". One is the "self" projected by a segregated ego and the other is a "self" projected by a centered ego. By segregated ego I mean thinking that you (the you that is limited to your brain and body, etc) are all important and only your experiences matter. However, this "self" is just an ornamentation of the essense of true self - that is, the state of being yourself in which you have no depiction - you just are. By centered ego I am talking about being aware that you are perceiving the world, but instead of thinking "you" are just the self in your brain and body, you see youself as only a focal point for a self that exists metaphysically. By metaphysically I mean that the source of true conscious perception is an abstract thing - it is not physical. It is akin to a thought. Where does the thought exist? where are you actually existing from? is it a physical place? if so, then our scientific methods should be able to detect this entity. So far, they can't - I'm sure we'd hear big news about that if they could! So, that in mind, I consider the true source of "self" to be something "cosmic" (that word implies "all-that-is"), something underlying reality from which reality projects. The philosopher Sartre called this thing "the Essence". Now, I try not to stick to terms, but that term he used was denoting, to some degree, the same thing. However, the way "self" projects creates the illusion that we commonly will refer to our"self". That "self" that we think we know...you know, I like driving cars, I like to play tennis all the time, I'm going to be a doctor, etc, etc...is not real, it is the illusion. But the true self, the self that has no need to be shaped, the source behind this existence (the world of perception, if you will) is indeed real. But it just is, and that is that. All the rest is just one small confinement/depiction of it. In truth, that true self can be anything or nothing. Whatever it wants to be; because it just is. Anyhow, just a piece of my mind. I think we could have some interesting chats on msn sometime. You can add me if you'd like. Graeme

[Evanescent]

You tell me wise swami of philosophy. Who am i?

[Anelior]

That is something that you/all of us are constantly discovering a more and more complete answer to every moment of your existence. The picture of "who I am" is something that is always changing and in the process of growth. We are always being put in situations where we are learning who we really are deeper and deeper. Simply put though, you are who you are. But the path to truly understanding the full implication of that statement is the end of a journey; living and becoming in tune with one's source of being is the journey itself, and boy oh boy is it ever an exciting one! As equally terrifying at times as it is blissful, but the feeling of being plugged in and aware by far outweighs those negative states so that overall, the sensation of existing is nothing but euphoric! Anyway, that's just my opinion...just sharing what I think.

[Taosaur]

I think of self more as an activity than a thing. Sometimes I put more effort into it, sometimes less, so it may be just a set of idiosyncratic behaviors and preferences, or it may include a complex balance of relationships and ideas. I think I feel best when I am "selfing" least, and focusing outward on what is best for the situation I'm in. This has been kind of abstract...I'm tired. Something to think about, though, I hope.

[Nebulae]

dunno who the hell i am or if i exist but i do know i have your picture tattood on mah body neill...dont you feel honoured?

[Belisarius]

I think that the "self" that is your personality is you(your consciousness) in the circumstances you are in now. I don't think anything distinguishes you from anyone else except circumstances, but also that you exist beyond circumstances.

[Universal Mind]

At least one sect of Zen teaches that "There is no 'I'." It teaches that the ego is an illusion. I did a very dangerous drug when I was 19, and it messed me up so bad that I completely lost my sense of "self". I saw hands, arms, legs, and so forth, but I had no sense of their being part of "me" because there did not seem to be a "me". There were just all of these body parts that were connected. They might as well have been the bed or the ceiling. There was perception, but it didn't seemingly belong to anything. When I was on mushrooms in Pensacola in 1991 (I just told a story about this trip in another thread. I am a sober lucid dreaming enthusiast now. Lucid dreaming has much greater potential than any drugs, so please don't get the idea that I am encouraging drugs. I almost died of overdose more than once and have experienced extreme horror on certain hallucinogens, even marijuana.), I literally sensed several selves existing in my consciousness. My brother and I were tripping too hard to go to a bar that the others in the group wanted to go to. My perception was exactly this: One of me fully wanted to go to the bar, one of me fully wanted to stay at the beach house, and one of me wanted to go to the beach. Another one of me was amused by how there was more than one of me. I sensed about ten of me. This was the result of different neurological pathways having different dispositions. Which one was the real "me"? The book The Mind's I discusses the principle of "I" from many angles. It presents a science fiction scenario that poses a very difficult question. Let's say you are trapped on the moon because your space ship has broken down. However, you have a machine that can take a 100% accurate blue print of your exact anatomical and physiological state and beam that blue print to a bio lab on Earth. If "you" die on the moon, but your blue print is beamed to the lab, and the lab can compose your body in the exact state it was in right before you died, same brain configuration, memories, beliefs, etc., would that be "you" on Earth? One thing is certain... That person would fully feel like he or she is "you". What if that person went home to your spouse (Suppose you have one for the sake of this hypothetical.)? Should your spouse reject this person? What if your spouse welcomed this person and "you" and the spouse picked things up where "you" left off? What if it turned out that "you" didn't die on the moon, and "you" went home to your spouse? What should your spouse do if ten years have passed? I got this idea when listening to Art Bell in 1997: What if a surgeon could take a cell our of your brain and replace it with a replica cell that functions in exactly the same way. Let's say you could remain conscious through the whole procedure. After one brain cell exchange, your consciousness would still be continuing, and you would think, "It's still I who is here." After a thousand brain cell exchanges, you would still feel that way. After every cell and neuron and everything else in your brain have been replaced, you would have never had a gap in consciousness and would still feel like it is "you" who is there. Would it be? Now, what if while the exchange was taking place, every cell (etc.) of your brain was being assembled in a new configuration that completely replicates the state your brain was in right before the procedure? Would that new set up be "you" or would "you" be the system that never experienced a gap in consciousness? I don't know what the answer is. I think Zen might be right on this issue. ----------------------------------------- Let go of the hand that holds itself, and it will let go of yourself. -- Spencer Powers, from The Unity of Nothing

[Neil]

Universal mind, you asked some very interesting questions there at the end of your post. Individual cells die and are replaced frequently in the human body. In fact, in four years' time, every cell in your body will have been replaced. Are you the same person as you were? My answer is no, but not for any magical reason other than the fact that things change as time goes on. The body is no different. Neither is the mind. The mind is many wonderful things, but it is limited by time. Just as a car can exist with parts of it replaced, so can the mind. Think of thoughts and attitudes. You may not have believed it was possible for a person to travel to the moon. But it was done, and so, that belief died. Beliefs die and are born within you all the time, among many other abstract intangible thoughts, all the time. I mean, lets be realistic. I am certainly not the same person I was ten years ago. That was a different "me". My brain hadn't even fully grown at that age, and certainly my belief structures weren't anywhere near as they are now. Nevertheless, just because the "self" evolves over time by no means necessarily means that there is no such thing as a "self." The idea of cloning brains and so on is certainly fascinating, and there is no reason why its not possible, theoretically. I have no problem with tangent selves, and I don't think this disproves or invalidates my ability to exist as an independendent sentient being. I think, therefore I am. -Socrates (I think )

[l3xicon]

Originally posted by Universal Mind At least one sect of Zen teaches that \"There is no 'I'.\" It teaches that the ego is an illusion. The question that always comes to my mind when I hear this claim is that, who is the illusion fooling? Because an illusion is by definition something that is perceived falsely, so someone has to perceive it. I brought up a similar idea in the \"YOU'RE NOT REAL\" thread (in the context of what it means to be \"real\") but the same principle remains: To use a word like \"illusion\" necessitates a little more detail, I think. To assert something is an illusion implies certain things: first of all, a medium for the illusion (what creates it, what it \"really is\" when you stop being fooled) and someone or thing to be fooled by it. As far as I'm concerned, the ego CANNOT be an illusion. However it comes to exist, once it does, it has an undeniable reality. You may say, \"It's only an illusion created by such-and-such in the brain\", but the fact remains that we all possess one, and in fact cannot live productively without one. It has effects, therefore it is real. Real enough anyway. What if a surgeon could take a cell our of your brain and replace it with a replica cell that functions in exactly the same way.... Now, what if while the exchange was taking place, every cell (etc.) of your brain was being assembled in a new configuration that completely replicates the state your brain was in right before the procedure? Would that new set up be \"you\" or would \"you\" be the system that never experienced a gap in consciousness?[/b] I think the continuity of the consciousness is the most important thing. Of course, that other creature would be "you" in the sense that it thinks like you, walks like you, talks like you, but the only one who could claim to be the "original" would be the one who experienced the uninterupted flow of consciousness, in my opinion. Another good hypothetical along the same lines involves matter transporters. Suppose a machine is invented which scans your molecular structure, disintegrates you, then reassembles you out of other atoms in exactly the same configuration somewhere else. The first question is: would it really be "you" that appears on the other side? Or just a replica? The second question is: Suppose it does the same thing except it doesn't disassemble the original...now what do you think of the first question? -anglicus

[Kevyboy]

OK good points and i can see where your coming from. Neil said: I think most people who are intelligent enough to realise that how others perviece us is important or merely that we are being constantly asessed are self-conscious. [/b] in the end there are three possible outcomes of which no-one has proved We die and: [list] Nothing happens we are worm food We go to another to so other existance somewhere else We get reincarnated and come back[list] In any case after that all the assesments that people made on us become completely invalid so it becomes unimportant then and now. I answer to your question "who are you?" I am me thats the only answer there is - im not who people percieve me to be because that my be wrong some if not most people cant see the true you, so you cant say that their perception is who you are can you?

[Taosaur]

Originally posted by anglicus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(anglicus)</div> <!--QuoteBegin-Universal Mind At least one sect of Zen teaches that \"There is no 'I'.\" It teaches that the ego is an illusion. The question that always comes to my mind when I hear this claim is that, who is the illusion fooling? Because an illusion is by definition something that is perceived falsely, so someone has to perceive it. [/b] The idea of self or the world as illusion is only one way of teaching Buddhist principles. It's not intended as an absolute truth, but only as a way of drawing some people's attention to the nature of experience. The illusion is not so much ego itself as our way of perceiving it and attaching great weight to it. Another way of teaching Buddhism emphasizes that all phenomena, including ego, are empty--they have no lasting substance or identity. Going back to my last post, I tend to see everything, including ego, as activity rather than identity. Nothing holds still long enough to BE anything, yet it's all clearly doing something. The only way to know this activity, in my experience, is to observe it without judgement, without attachment or aversion.

[Neil]

Originally posted by Kevyboy In any case after that all the assesments that people made on us become completely invalid so it becomes unimportant then and now. I answer to your question \"who are you?\" I am me thats the only answer there is - im not who people percieve me to be because that my be wrong some if not most people cant see the true you, so you cant say that their perception is who you are can you? I wasn't saying that it is important that our true "selves" are perceived by others. I meant that its important how we are perceived because if we are perceived in a positive way by others, we are given more opportunities. To use a big example, I could say that I could avert a nuclear war with my charm, by charming my way to the Presidency and by disarming my nation's nuclear arsenal, thus saving the entire human race from extinction. Therefore, how we are perceived by others is of paramount importance (at least in terms of our own lives, not the universe's life or meaning, since, as you said, we all become dust in the end).

[Neil]

Taosaur, I totally agree with you. Very good post.

[Universal Mind]

Great points from everybody. I think the paradox involves the coexistence of anglicus's issue about who is being fooled by the illusion and Taosaur's point that "Nothing holds still long enough to be anything." I think the latter point is illustrated by the bizarre hypotheticals about brain replacement. The idea that the "self" can change into other things (in theory) without an official moment of disappearance, and even replicate itself without disappearing, even into something that might be a truer form of itself, is a reductio ad absurdum of the concept of "self". It seems to show that there never was anything solidly existent enough to officially be a "self". However, SOMETHING is there percieving and experiencing, and that is what could be labelled "self". The resolution to the paradox could be the Eastern principle that existence itself (God, Brahman, the Tao, Universal Mind, Nirvana, Buddha nature, the one, It) is the only real "self", and everything else is It in a manifestational form. I've been trying to answer the question for about 13 years, and I'm still baffled.

[jnani]

Great to find this topic. I believe that there is a lucid waking state that corresponds to the lucid dream state. This lucid waking state is obscured by the artificially constructed identity that we call self. This "self" separates us from our Universal Being (Waking Lucidity).

[Universal Mind]

Now it's 2009. Does anybody have an answer on this?

[Invader]

This is what my myspace About Me section says.. The only understanding I'm aware of comes from experience, and to understand me personally would require that one experience me in some shape or form (duh). The one great limitation of human language is that things are expressible only up to a certain degree, and every word used by such language only acts as a symbol to convey a meaning that is often subjective to the listener. Any language can only offer a slight glimmer of what goes on in one's mind, and only because everyone interprets descriptions differently. I am also a firm believer that pirate/ninja hybrids are superior to just pirates or ninjas individually. That's the basic introduction to Me.

[Serkat]

+1 for invader_tech. The answer to the question lies in semantics and psycholinguistics. The validity of the question must be questioned. Only because a question can be posed, it is not automatically a valid question. This seems not to be common knowledge.

[ClouD]

"Self" in the context of the OP, is a word used to represent that which cannot be transcended. Transcended, as by separated from. It's not something that can be effectively talked of, since it cannot be separated from, it is what "you" are, and it cannot be looked at, it can only be. Everything that isn't you, isn't you, right? Well "you" also isn't you, and that's what is meant by "Self".

[Universal Mind]

Now it's 2009. Does anybody have an answer on this? I should have said, "Does anybody else have an answer on this?" I didn't mean to take anything away from the answers that were already given.

[Xei]

I am my mathematical (neural) network. I am not my body. I am not the things I have done; they are the consequences of me, but not me myself. I am simply this particular network. I see no contradictions.

[Universal Mind]

I am my mathematical (neural) network. I am not my body. I am not the things I have done; they are the consequences of me, but not me myself. I am simply this particular network. I see no contradictions. Which neural network would you be if this happened?... I got this idea when listening to Art Bell in 1997: What if a surgeon could take a cell our of your brain and replace it with a replica cell that functions in exactly the same way. Let's say you could remain conscious through the whole procedure. After one brain cell exchange, your consciousness would still be continuing, and you would think, "It's still I who is here." After a thousand brain cell exchanges, you would still feel that way. After every cell and neuron and everything else in your brain have been replaced, you would have never had a gap in consciousness and would still feel like it is "you" who is there. Would it be? Now, what if while the exchange was taking place, every cell (etc.) of your brain was being assembled in a new configuration that completely replicates the state your brain was in right before the procedure? Would that new set up be "you" or would "you" be the system that never experienced a gap in consciousness? I don't know what the answer is. I think Zen might be right on this issue.

[Xei]

That's very obvious; I would still be the same network, because this happens naturally all the time. The organic compounds that constitute our bodies are constantly being recycled. Neural networks are systems which emerge from collections of atoms. This is what is so fascinating about consciousness; 'collections of atoms', in reductionism, are simply not supposed to have any sort of meaningful, tangible existence. However, reality is somehow 'recognising' which collection of atoms is a neuron and which is not, and which neurons are causing which to fire, and so on. There is a much better question you can ask.