Can someone explain the “illusion of self” concept in rational scientific terms? What exactly does it mean?
Can someone explain the “illusion of self” concept in rational scientific terms?
Can someone explain the “illusion of self” concept in rational scientific terms? What exactly does it mean?
>in rational scientific terms
>rational
No, they can't. Make the inevitable analogy with "the illusion of chair" and watch them have a psychotic breakdown.
All I was able to find were furniture optical illusions.
>googling "the illusion of chair" instead of trying to understand what's being implied
It is referring to the fact that you cannot assign an owner to 'your' consciousness.
Because “our” memories and conscious are separate, and our identity stems from “our” memories?
>memories and conscious are separate
How would you go about showing this?
I guess what he's trying to say is that consciousness is a sense of being, while the "self" is a sense of the continuity of being.
self is a set of habits, habits change
Your brain has a mechanism for modeling and predicting what will happen in the world. One element of this is modeling and predicting what our future selves will do. What humans do is an outcome of many complex and chaotic physical processes and is impossible to model exactly, so the brain simplifies it by abstracting some sort of higher irreducible form of agency. Think of it like a linear regression -- you know the process isn't really linear, but you're just using it to simplify and make basic predictions. Your self isn't 'real', it's just the brain trying to understand itself and predict what it's going to do next.
Based pop-sci midwit.
You too.
it means nothing. scientists can't into theology.
>explain this philosophical bullshit concept in terms of science
the illusion of self is the scientific position on the philosophy of consciousness.
Nope, that would be dualism.
>the illusion of self is the scientific position
It's the IFLS position. Legitimate science doesn't stray into that territory at all.
Precisely. The self is not a scientific definition and never existed in the first place.
ur life started when ur dad jizzed on some shit in ur mom's c**t. later on ur mom shitted the cum covered part of her c**t and named it (you).
you don't exist as an individual person, you're just some cum covered shit that used to be part of ur mom.
you know how you can cut an earthworm in half and get two living worms as a result? you're like that except instead of being cut off you were shitted out
Your not really conscious or experiencing anything at the moment. That is just an illusion produced by our mind. Consciousness isnt real.
There's no such thing as a continuous self entity. Your mind is constantly changing. If we took a snapshot of your mind now and again in five minutes you will find few if any similarities whatsoever... The entire scope of experience will be different...
Imagine existence with absolutely no ability to form memory at all. You would never have any sense of who you are or what life is etc you'd just know present experience and before you can even grasp it, it's gone and the next moment is happening. Ad nauseum.
It's this idea that you are more than a changing object that allows for a sense of self. When you notice it is constantly changing you'll realize there is no concrete persistent self there.
>It's this idea that you are more than a changing object that allows for a sense of self.
>When you notice it is constantly changing you'll realize there is no concrete persistent self there.
So which one is it, you imbecile?
I'm on Valium but I think those statements match. Thinking you are more than a constsntly morphing object gives a sense of some sort of persisting self thing. Realization that you AREN'T more than that destroys the idea of a persisting self. The rabbithole is semi-deep. Easy to explain but leads to much questioning.
>Thinking you are more than a constsntly morphing object
The very concept of a "constantly morphing object" already assumes there is more to it than physical states. Anyway, I wonder why people like you think "the self is an illusion" is some profound statement, but not "the chair is an illusion".
I'm on a lot of Valium... Realization that objects are made of perceptions comes sooner than the realization that there is no self. Keep in mind the idea of a self entity is pretty much the most crucial element to our survival, and so its the best guarded secret of all.
This is why I said the rabbit hole is easy to explain but deep because it leads to a long list of questioning because it's counterintuitive to how the brain is programmed to think for survival.
You can't even explain your point without appealing to the things you are trying to refute.
My take is that it is easier to grasp the idea that the Chair is only a "Chair" from our perspective. Get a little closer and it is fibers, then molecules, all the way to atoms. Sure this is a nominal point of view, but it would completely acceptable to say that the chair is an illusion because there is no such thing as a chair, it's just an arrangement of smaller components. We say "Chair" when we speak about a certain shape, and with that shape, a certain action. Sitting.
But the concept of the self being an illusion is something that most people don't think of and makes little sense when its first introduced. The feeling of being something more akin to a Soul residing in the body cannot possibly survive scrutiny. There is no one "place" where you are. I am not talking about self in terms of physical position (e.g. "I" am sitting in the chair), I am referring to the feeling that we are the thing that is thinking thoughts, hearing sounds, smelling smells. A homunculus driving the body.
I believe that this illusion, of our sense of identity being that of the ego, is what causes things like irrational hatred, irresponsible use of technology, and a lack of sympathy.
Why are soul-tards so aggressive in these threads? They always ruin the discussions with their over-emotional investments in the topic
>literally the only one to mention souls ITT
>muh "soul" boogeyman
No one likes your low IQ intellectual posturing.
>the self is an illusion
>the self isn't real
>literally the only thing a human can objectively say to have interaction with doesn't actually exist
What foundations do scientific observations stand on when we deny the legitimacy of the observer itself?
Ummm, sweaty? It's different, okay? The sense that you inhabit a physical world made up of separable elements that travel through time is just different. Senses and mental constructs pertaining to bland kindergarten materialism are real, while everything else is an illusion.