The Self

Damocles said:
Here AHZ,

Read up...

http://www.nuclecu.unam.mx/~alberto/physics/string.html



Thought I'd help you out by pointing out a "thing" while speaking of string theory as well. This is a very elemental explanation offered on that website, it is far more complicated and very fascinating.
Click to expand...

Damo stop being a show off. I mentioned earlier that I know as much about string theory as AHZ knows about women outside of the tween set, and right away you have to think up an excuse to show everyone how much smarter than me you are. You thought I wouldn't know this is all about me? No, I know Damo.
 
Darla said:
Damo stop being a show off. I mentioned earlier that I know as much about string theory as AHZ knows about women outside of the tween set, and right away you have to think up an excuse to show everyone how much smarter than me you are. You thought I wouldn't know this is all about me? No, I know Damo.
Click to expand...
Ah... She sees right through me...
 
String theory, damo, is indeed a fascinating concept. All of quantum physics is a mind bender to the nth degree.

The trouble with string theory at this point however, is that it is untestable. Maybe it will be testable at some point, and it indeed shows some incredible promise, but as of yet it is on the purely conceptual side.

That doesn't diminish, however in any way, the awesome nature of quantum particles. The building blocks of our world are beyond any comprehension, logic, or "pictures" we can see at this time. String theory may be an answer, and I am totally tripping out on it (especially if I'm high), and it plugs a lot of holes, but it still remains untestable.

The Bohr thing from years ago is now yeilding possibilities to a test, but as of yet, it is still conceptual.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
It's a conundrum and I don't claim to hold the answer. Mind-body dualism in general strikes me as dangerously easy: it's a lazy way out of the problem. Yet it's so pervasive because it is such a natural conclusion based on our experience. From any individual's perspective, there clearly is a Self that exists, at least in some sense. There is continuity through one's life. More than that, the Self seems to survive amputation of major organs, even the complete incapacitation of the body.

Mysticism aside, I think that the self is, basically, software. It is in some sense differentiated from the brain's hardware but cannot exist independently from it. The self exists only while the software is running, in a sense.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree, the notion of the mind, as well as the self, is IMO the actions of the brain (though not the brain itself). In this case, the self is extremely fluid, constantly changing....
 
I would say the self is the continuation of the stream of consciousness. However I started a thread a little bit back to challenge whether the stream of consciousness being terminated is the destruction of self.

The idea of self is a construct that will only matter to the holder of that self identity. If we deconstruct a person's brain into energy store the organizational data and than a millisecond later reconstitute it no one else would perceive that any change has occured in the individual. However I would say that that person ceased to exist and a new person was created even though the newly created person would have all the memories of the old and could never perceive they were a copy.

I would not say the self is the brain, or mind. They are material objects and can be replicated perfectly. Thus the self is not a material object but rather a state of an object.

Ultimately this is arbitrary to all but the individual who undergoes such change. In the scientific sense the destruction of self has no meaning as all matter constantly changes. However human being value their individual identity and attach it to their lives. It would make many feel uncomfortable to know that they can be destroyed without even knowing simply buy the changing quantum state in the matter of their minds. I know it bothers me.


I think we have a consensus between yourself, Ornot and myself. The brain, an organ with a specific role just as the lungs or heart do cannot be deemed the self, and the conclusion that we all seem to be making is that it is the fluid actions of the brain that constitutes the self. Maybe Descarte's was correct with cogito ergo sum, but from the wrong perspective of mind body dualism....
 
These questions are truly a waste of brain cells.

Yeah, all those philosophers who spent so much time working on the problem of the nature of the self were just wasting their time.... lol

Because you don't understand a debate AHZ, doesn't mean it is pointless...
 
AnyOldIron said:
These questions are truly a waste of brain cells.

Yeah, all those philosophers who spent so much time working on the problem of the nature of the self were just wasting their time.... lol

Because you don't understand a debate AHZ, doesn't mean it is pointless...
Click to expand...

No. It's pointless, and even though string theory is interesting, it's still not related much to SELF.
 
No. It's pointless, and even though string theory is interesting, it's still not related much to SELF.

That isn't the topic of the conversation. The topic is, what is the self.

String theory was brought up as an example of the relevance of the question.
 
AnyOldIron said:
No. It's pointless, and even though string theory is interesting, it's still not related much to SELF.

That isn't the topic of the conversation. The topic is, what is the self.

String theory was brought up as an example of the relevance of the question.
Click to expand...

And WHAT IS THE SELF? is a pointless question. It's Kind of like monks discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin. And I believe string theory , while interesting, does not really add significance to the question.
 
AssHatZombie said:
And WHAT IS THE SELF? is a pointless question. It's Kind of like monks discussing the number of angels on the head of a pin. And I believe string theory , while interesting, does not really add significance to the question.
Click to expand...
It adds interest to a rather boring and dry philosophical discussion. At least for me it does.
 
Damocles said:
It adds interest to a rather boring and dry philosophical discussion. At least for me it does.
Click to expand...

Yes. Well. Get tangential enough and all discussions can be made interesting. Defining self, or abstracting self, or pontificating about self has little to do with string theory, though yes, string theory is interesting. This discussion would also have been enlivened by talking about boobs.:clink:
 
Damocles said:
The connections of the universe to all things can be expressed mathematically. Thus your connection to the rest of the universe too can be expressed mathematically.
Click to expand...

Yeah I suppose so. Math nuts even think womens behaviour can be expressed mathmatically....Me I just use a cowculator to count my stock...
 
We'll continue with a computer analogy....

Anyway, "self" can't be just software. Software cannot compute by itself. Self can't be just hardware, the brain couldn't think without the "software" any more than the computer could do more than use up electricity without an operating system. Peripherals don't make self. You can take off the printer, the fax, even the monitor and the computer will still work.

You can take away a network connection. It wouldn't be as nice. Or you could go cheap and get a dial-up.

All of these changes wouldn't change that it was a computer, even removing the OS so it would be unusable. However removing either the OS or the Processor would negate the "useability" of the system as it would with a human. Hence "brain dead" is a reality, and microcephalics are human...

"self" is clearly the totality of it. Is a man without legs "less of a man"? No they are still a human, but they are not as efficient a human as they were before they lost their legs....
 
Damocles said:
We'll continue with a computer analogy....

Anyway, "self" can't be just software. Software cannot compute by itself. Self can't be just hardware, the brain couldn't think without the "software" any more than the computer could do more than use up electricity without an operating system. Peripherals don't make self. You can take off the printer, the fax, even the monitor and the computer will still work.

You can take away a network connection. It wouldn't be as nice. Or you could go cheap and get a dial-up.

All of these changes wouldn't change that it was a computer, even removing the OS so it would be unusable. However removing either the OS or the Processor would negate the "useability" of the system as it would with a human. Hence "brain dead" is a reality, and microcephalics are human...

"self" is clearly the totality of it. Is a man without legs "less of a man"? No they are still a human, but they are not as efficient a human as they were before they lost their legs....
Click to expand...
Fair enough. That's pretty much the same way I see it, though expressed differently. It gets sticky, though, when you try to take the metaphor too far.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Yes. Well. Get tangential enough and all discussions can be made interesting. Defining self, or abstracting self, or pontificating about self has little to do with string theory, though yes, string theory is interesting. This discussion would also have been enlivened by talking about boobs.:clink:
Click to expand...
I like boobs as much as anyone but that doesn't make them a topic for converstion. That's a participatory sport, not something to yak about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top