The Buddha denies a soul but affirms consciousness. What then is the difference between a soul and consciousness? — TheMadFool
modern analogy that is sometimes given is of a fax transmission - when you send a fax, a copy of the document turns up on the other end, but really it is made of completely different material to the first one. Another question that is asked is: are you the same person you were when you were seven? (no). Are you a different person (no). So - neither the same nor different. 'Identity' doesn't reside in some separate 'essence' but is the very combination of elements that give rise to the person. — Wayfarer
If you had not lived, the universe would have been different both before and after you were born.Before I was born, the universe existed as evidenced through the experience and memory of others. After I die, I'm absolutely sure that the universe will continue to exist. How then does the universe depend on me?
If you had not lived, the universe would have been different both before and after you were born. — andrewk
Between you and me, I think that this citta-santāna idea almost amounts to the same as 'a soul' but the politics are such that you're never allowed to suggest such a thing to Buddhists! — Wayfarer
wonder what it is, within us, that gives rise to concepts like soul, heaven, hell? Do you see any evidence for them or are they the result of a mash-up of fear, hope and immature thinking? — TheMadFool
The feeling of self, identity, soul, ego, and similar aspects of ourselves is a common human experience. It makes sense that there would be a word for it. Actually, there are many - identity, self, soul, mind, ego, heart, self-awareness, consciousness, self-consciousness, spirit, me, myself, I, will, being, psyche, character, personality, essence, brain, mentality. Once they've experienced it, many have a hard time imagining it could stop existing. It must go somewhere after you die because it's clearly not still here. — T Clark
Could it be that such conceptual entities are just a "convenient" way of discourse rather than being substantive? It could be that there is no self or ego or identity and that these simply makes for easier conversation or thinking. This then, over time, becomes an ingrained habit; so ingrained that we think that they actually exist. — TheMadFool
Have you seen the new season of Black Mirror? It's interesting to see technological versions of Heaven and Hell. They aren't called that in the show, but it's the same idea. — dog
In what way is this "ingrained habit" any different from the experience we call the self or the soul. — T Clark
What I'm saying is that communication or language requires the distinction self-other. Look at animals. They don't possess language, at least not as well-developed as human language, and they lack, as evidenced by many experiments(?), a sense of the self-other distinction. This suggests that the concept of self/ego/I is just a convenience of language. It makes for easier discourse rather than there being meat in it. — TheMadFool
This suggests that the concept of self/ego/I is just a convenience of language. It makes for easier discourse rather than there being meat in it. — TheMadFool
I watched, pretty disturbing. — praxis
There is some evidence that some animals have a sense of self, obviously without language. Crows, octopi for God's sake, toucans. Certainly not conclusive evidence. — T Clark
But what occurs to me is that substantive/non-substantive is the same kind of convenience of language. — dog
I'm not saying 'don't think.' But I am saying that the problem is artificial and part-time in an important sense. Whatever the self is (if anything or if the issue is confused or undecidable), the abstract issue seems to have little bearing on how 'it' functions and is experienced. — dog
Only in the sense of a flickering light; not as full-fledged like the human sense of self. I'm guessing here but in babies the sense of self develops after language acquisition. I don't remember me as me before I could speak. Do you? — TheMadFool
How do you know this? — T Clark
Self-concept or just self-recognition?
Of course this study simplifies a mass of psychological complexity. Psychologists have raised all sorts of questions about what the mirror test reveals. It could be, for example, that infants just don’t understand faces particularly well until they are around two years old. Perhaps, then, they develop a self-concept at a much earlier stage.
Alternatively it could be that at around two years old infants develop a solid physical or visual self-concept, but still have little mental self-concept. In this case all the test is showing is that we know what we look like; perhaps we don’t develop our self-concept until much later in life.
Of course this study simplifies a mass of psychological complexity. Psychologists have raised all sorts of questions about what the mirror test reveals. It could be, for example, that infants just don’t understand faces particularly well until they are around two years old. Perhaps, then, they develop a self-concept at a much earlier stage.
You're right. Ouroboros. Do you see a way out of the vicious cycle? — TheMadFool
You're right but don't you think, even in the fog, that we may be able to discern a form and make sense of the matter? — TheMadFool
No. We can't get behind our getting behind, as far as I can see. Someone might say something revolutionary and clever and change my mind, I guess. But it's not something I'd expect, and it couldn't be the same old dictionary math. — dog
I think we can focus here and there and see this or that more clearly/effectively. Indeed, I think we do it all the time. And I'm arguably trying to do the same thing with the points I offered. I'm trying to economize my effort, pick my battles, get behind my getting behind as much as possible. But I still hold that we don't question the questioning as we question. A moment afterward it becomes material for further reflection, but there seems to be a cutting edge of faithful creative know-how. (For instance, I didn't know how I would finish that sentence. I just had a vague intention. The fog condensed. Then it occurred to me to use it as an example.) — dog
I call this the self-referential problem. There's something wrong with it but I can't seem to pin it down. A lot of "useful" knowledge is abandoned on account of this. Take statements like "everything is relative" or "all Cretans are liars". These are all actually useful observations but are attacked on the point that they're self-contradictory. — TheMadFool
Perhaps the fog is the truth and there isn't any further clarity to be had. — TheMadFool
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.