also find it odd you're positing an external reality when in my thread you tried defending solipsism — TerraHalcyon

Defending solipsism? I defended the guy. I'm not a solipsist.

They would also strongly argue that you aren't the body, for a lot of reasons. — TerraHalcyon

If not the body, then who are you? It's who I see in the water. It's what other people see of me. The brainy mental universe and the physical one around me make it possible for me to live. In that sense they are essential for me. But they are no me.

Which is the same as defending solipsism.

If not the body, then who are you? It's who I see in the water. It's what other people see of me. The brainy mental universe and the physical one around me make it possible for me to live. In that sense they are essential for me. But they are no me. — Raymond

Apparently you aren't your body either. I forget the argument they used but it's similar to the ship of Theseus

Ah, then I understand. I'm not made of the same particles as when born. I'm not sure if that matters. All the new ones have a direct relation to the old. There is not a new me.

Which is the same as defending solipsism — TerraHalcyon

I don't get this. Why you say that?

In a sense there is a new you because nothing that makes up you is permanent. You're appealing to some core that doesn't really exist.

I don't get this. Why you say that? — Raymond

Because the guy is literally arguing for solipsism.

Just because you can't zero in on it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is an illusion — TerraHalcyon

If you can't identify your ego, does it even exist. Given a description of a man, if no real individual matches it, is the man described real?

Damn you Agent! How come you make me laugh every time? :razz: — Raymond

How much does a magazine pay for a(n) (original) joke? I'll be expecting a deposit from you into my nonexistent bank account!

Just because you can't identify it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By that logic air and gravity wouldn't exist either and neither would magnetism or the human body.

Given a description of a man, if no real individual matches it, is the man described real? — Agent Smith

Sounds like an argument from ignorance to me.

An individual's personality is his consistent proactions and reactions in similar situations caused by his desires, fears and priorities that comprise his mind.

Studies of individuals whose personalities had been well-organized and well-liked but who suffered accidents or illnesses that altered their brains often found their personalities change to become disorganized and disliked.

This set of facts suggests that whatever is an individual's self and whatever is an individual's ego that either cause or otherwise reveal an individual's personality are brain functions which can change when the brain is altered and will be dead when the brain is dead and no longer functioning.

Thus, to address the OP, whatever is an individual's ego relevant to his personality will die when the individual's brain is dead and no longer functioning.

Air and gravity have been identified - we can weigh air, we can feel gravity. The ego, on the other hand, neither can be weighed, nor felt. Truth is the ego is viewed ontologically as one might view a football or chair (exists in the same sense but not, mind you, of the same stuff/substance) and to the extent that's true, the ego is unreal; after all, unlike a chair or a football, you can't say :point: is our ego.

An individual's personality is his consistent proactions and reactions in similar situations ... — Robert H Kroepel

:up:

...caused by his desires, fears and priorities that comprise his mind. — Robert H Kroepel

:down:

Does this not explain the visible in terms of the hidden, the public in terms of the private? These old, familiar postulated entities, ghosts in the attic. What if 'desires, fears and priorities' are ultimately fancy and potentially confusing words for 'consistent proactions and reactions' in various situations?

Have they though?

I can't see the air and there isn't a way to truly isolate it. The same goes for gravity, where is gravity located? You don't feel gravity, you just notice it's effects yet if asked to identify or locate it you wouldn't be able to.

The ego, on the other hand, neither can be weighed, nor felt. — Agent Smith

Neither can gravity yet it exists. Waves can't be weighed or felt either yet they exist. Again you're just appealing to ignorance here. Some things are more than their component parts. The human "body" is just made up of millions of smaller individual parts, yet the whole is more than the parts. I believe it's called emergence, which is a property where you can't locate it in any one area. The ego is the same way, there is no one "Spot" where it is located, same with memory. It's not like you can slice a part of the brain and make someone forget, it's more complex that way.

the ego is unreal; after all, unlike a chair or a football, you can't say :point: is our ego. — Agent Smith

Except it isn't unreal, it's just more complex than you know like any aspect of the human mind/brain.

You seem to know what the ego is. Challenge: Define it i.e. what predicates apply to it?

Like I said, it's complicated. That's all I can say. Not even Buddhism says anything about there not being a self, or ego (a common mistake really as buddha said nothing on it when he was asked).

My question though is why do you care? Not everything can be analyzed and quantified.

Like I said, it's complicated. — TerraHalcyon

Then why claim one thing or another. If something is complicated, it usually means one can't make anything out of it. Your statements, confident and sure, don't square with "like I said, it's complicated".

Anyway, I too think it's complicated and there's a reason why I used this: :point: It kinda simplifies matters if you catch my drift.

My question though is why do you care? Not everything can be analyzed and quantified. — TerraHalcyon

I'm a human being (I'm not a 100% certain though as I feel quite animalish sometimes). I hope that explains it.

If something is complicated, it usually means one can't make anything out of it. — Agent Smith

Not usually, it's like the case with memory. You can't really feel or weigh it but you know it's real (well some would debate it), the issue though is that there isn't really an area of the brain that stores it all. You can't really cut a piece out and alter memory like that.

The same goes with the self, or ego. It's complicated, the result of several areas of the brain in concert with each other. To ask someone to "Locate the self or ego" is asking the wrong question. It's not in one area and you won't find it if you try to reduce it to it's component parts.

I'm a human being (I'm not a 100% certain though as I feel quite animalish sometimes). I hope that explains it. — Agent Smith

Kind of an irrelevant statement, being human doesn't mean the question is important.

The root of identity crisis. Who am I? What's ego? The body. All problems solved. So no illusion at all. — Raymond

Isn't this more or less susceptible to ship of Theseus?

To ask someone to "Locate the self or ego" is asking the wrong question — TerraHalcyon

Brain localization of function. You're on point though! :up: Will get back to you if I think of anything interesting.

Isn't this more or less susceptible to ship of Theseus? — john27

That's what I said. Buddhism also has a similar point.

Brain localization of function. — Agent Smith

Not really, like I said as in memory it's many parts in concert not just one area.

It is merely the best way to describe an experience that cannot realistically be captured in mere words. I imagine you can read a poem without screaming at Blake about tigers not actually being on fire?

Another way to translate it would be to say the exact opposite … you become everything. There is nothing like it I have experienced since and nothing I can possibly conceive of that holds more power due to having none. It is an amalgam of contradictions when an attempt to strap words to it is made.

Another way would be to describe it as imagination that knows no bounds. Openness to a level where the idea of ‘end’ seems laughable as much as ‘beginning’ and leaving ‘infinite’ behind as a speck. The word ‘awesome’ (actual AWESOME) suits well.

If all you can hold onto are rigid meanings attached to words then you cannot do much thinking other than dry logical analysis. That has its value though obviously.

Not really, like I said as in memory it's many parts in concert not just one area — TerraHalcyon

So, you can't :point: (point) at a part of the brain and say "here, this is the memory" (perhaps memory is a diffuse network); nevertheless, there's still something you can use your index finger on!

Buddhism also has a similar point. — TerraHalcyon

Who cares?

Also, ‘ego’ has different meanings in different contexts. I’m more in favour of Jung’s mapping out of the psyche than Freud’s.

So, you can't :point: (point) at a part of the brain and say "here, this is the memory" (perhaps memory is a diffuse network); nevertheless, there's still something you can use your index finger on! — Agent Smith

No because again it's different parts of the brain in concert with each other, even if there is something you can point to you can't point to memory or measure or feel it so by your logic we have no memory. Like I said, complicated. Same with the self, it isn't located in a specific part of the brain but rather "all over" (so to speak).

You really aren't getting anywhere with your questions.

I get what you're trying to say, but you're committing two errors:

1. Mistaking your ignorance for fact.

2. A network is still amenable to a referential act effected by an index finger i.e. I can still do this: :point: to the network of neurons responsible for a mental faculty (here memory). Fuzziness is pointable!

What isn't pointable is a word whose extension is the $\emptyset$. I believe "ego" is such a word.

2. A network is still amenable to a referential act effected by an index finger i.e. I can still do this: :point: to the network of neurons responsible for a mental faculty (here memory). Fuzziness is pointable! — Agent Smith

Actually no you can't. I said it is different areas in concert, but you can't point to a network of neurons and say this anymore I can point to a network of neurons and say ego is here.

All I can really say is that it's the brain, but I can't point to a part and say it's here. That's how emergence works.

You seem awfully invested in there being no ego.

I believe "ego" is such a word. — Agent Smith

You'd be wrong then.

If you say so...

Another way to translate it would be to say the exact opposite … you become everything. — I like sushi

That is an interesting kind of via negativa, the agent has to be found through sifting the evidence for what is missing. That reminds me of the unknown value X in Descartes' geometry, where we act like we know it to make other equations.

It's not just me who says so.