Hello and welcome!

While I find the idea of self as a psychosocial construct compelling (as opposed to an indivisible metaphysical essence), the bundle theory specifically has problems. Some problems are definitional, starting with the question of "what are properties?" That is a big can of worms with centuries of controversies attached to it.

Perhaps a more salient problem for the bundle theory is that it is not a good fit for how we actually see personal identity. Every distinct bundle of properties individuates a distinct object - in this case, a distinct self. But we don't think that our personal identity is destroyed every time any of its constituent properties changes, such as when undergoing new experiences and acquiring new memories. Continuity and persistence are essential to our idea of self, so that we think of ourselves as the same person that we were a minute, a day and a decade ago.

When in doubt. As Sherlock Holmes once said, "when you eliminate the impossible, what remains must be the culprit."

When you think about it, so much of reality is bundle-like in the sense that there isn’t “a watch” that is comprised of various elements. Rather, those various elements constitute the watch.
“”I” is a verb disguised as a noun” — Mike5

My favourite topic, though I haven't read Baggni. But it looks as though you are taking elements of rather different understandings there. As to Hume, a brilliant philosopher, but in this case I would turn his method against him and declare that you can't get an 'I' from a bundle of 'its'. You can get a watch from a bundle of bits if they are the right bits and the bundle is arranged. But a watch has no sense of self.

He writes that the idea that “person” is a functional category, and in a sense constructed by the interaction of memories (psychological connectedness, and continuity), bodies, society, that appears unified. However there is no “subject” — Mike5

It is hard to know what this means; I wonder how you or Baggni would answer the sceptic again - no-one wrote this? Says who? It sounds rather similar to bundle theory, and seems to suffer from the same problems. A watch is carefully constructed (by someone) to form a functional whole, it cannot be made by shaking a bag of disparate bits.

What I think one needs to claim is not that there is no subject with or without scare quotes, but more that it is unnecessary, a mistake that humans make. That humans can function better without this aspect.

So I would say that the self is an idea, a thought around which all thought becomes organised, that becomes all important. I call this process of thought 'identification.' Starting like this is has the advantage that it is clear from the beginning that we are not talking about the physicality of the human being, but of the construction of an image in the mind. Now I can say very simply that I, unenlightened, am writing this post, having these thoughts and pressing these keys, but that all these things can perfectly well happen, and happen even rather better, without the idea of myself intruding at all.

And from there, we can look at the process of thought that I have called 'identification' and say something about what it is and how it it a mistake.

So if there are no selves in whatever this metaphysical sense is, is there also no things?

Why isn't a "self" just an object with a special status.

Assuming that statement is true, why not.

Again sans religion... yet you mention the metaphysical. Interesting. We'll call it spiritual I suppose.

Which does mean mankind though perhaps animals as well have or can have qualities that transcend this existence. Of course for the sake of theory you could say objects do too.. again for the sake of theory.

Which begs a whole multitude of other questions ie. is a few million grains of sand any different metaphysically than a sand castle formed of them? Etc.

For the sake of argument I'm going to assume we mean "the self" which again varies.. the essence, the soul, our memories, persona, something deeper even or comprised of one or more of the aforementioned is "a thing" in a form that transcends biology. Or is that what it is defined by? Hardly metaphysical if you ask me. If it is solely biologic the self is the conciousness, formed by the body and its senses. Memories, experiences, etc. to constitute an identity. If not.. that's when the argument gets interesting.

This is more a subject for Zen meditation. There one learns, or experiences one's "I" as a fabrication. Instead of "I am aware" there is only awareness. An instant of realization is worth more than a lifetime of philosophical dialogue. :cool:

This is more a subject for Zen meditation. There one learns, or experiences one's "I" as a fabrication. Instead of "I am aware" there is only awareness. An instant of realization is worth more than a lifetime of philosophical dialogue. — jgill

I think you ought to mean a life time of practice is worth more than an instant of realization. :P Especially if there is "nothing" to realize.

Hume’s claim that one’s perception is derived from or caused by a bundle of impressions can be denied on the very same grounds, or the very same means, which he denies causality.

So let’s refer to his notion of causality.

Hume states that, “We may define a ‘cause’ to be ‘An object precedent and contiguous to another, and where all the objects resembling the former are plac'd in like relations of precedency and contiguity to those objects, that resemble the latter.’” So that if there’s no precedency, there’s then no causation.

Now given that, in general, no impressions can precede perception, that is, impressions aren’t something prior to or outside of perception, then, by definition, no impressions can be the cause of one’s perception; since they must’ve preceded it, in order to have caused it. Yet, again, as impressions don’t, in general, precede perception, & so no necessary causal connection is maintainable between them, impressions then can’t be the cause of one’s perception, by Hume’s own accord. Thus, according to his own definitions, Hume’s derivation of one’s perception from impressions is inherently self-defeating (no pun intended).

“Awareness” is an abstract noun formed from the adjective “aware,” i.e., “awareness” by itself is an abstraction by definition. Now as an adjective without a noun that it qualifies is a contradiction, the quality of being “aware” without a thing that is so, is too. Thus, we can’t talk of being “aware” without presupposing a “thing” that is so; such that any claim to the contrary is contradictory, & therefore irrational.

There one learns, or experiences — jgill

Ironic, you deny the individual while presupposing it. Who’s this “one” who learns or has experiences, if not the individual person or subject?

You need to check yourself in. You’re crazy.

I’m also new. I came from Systemwars.net and was looking for something that offered more freedom. Like Bob Dylan said: emancipation!

Currently I’m by myself. You can buy myself, if you want.

So I would say that the self is an idea, a thought around which all thought becomes organised, that becomes all important. I call this process of thought 'identification.' Starting like this is has the advantage that it is clear from the beginning that we are not talking about the physicality of the human being, but of the construction of an image in the mind. Now I can say very simply that I, unenlightened, am writing this post, having these thoughts and pressing these keys, but that all these things can perfectly well happen, and happen even rather better, without the idea of myself intruding at all. — unenlightened

But suppose there was somekind of civil unrest in your city and this produced a certain amount of worry about your person or property. Does any projection of the future self and its well being amount to an intrusion of the self in one's mind (ex. the self is thinking about the conditions of its continuity). It seems this is about the physicality of self.

The whole reason we imagine the self is to ensure its continuity. Granted there might have been a time prior to this where instinct served us well in the absence of self-awareness. I'm sure many would argue that the neurotic self-obsession of modern times has become a kind of self harm. Just like it's good to eat food in moderation, so is it to avoid over-thinking or worrying about future states, but this is easier said than done.

Is this sort of what you mean?

This is more a subject for Zen meditation. There one learns, or experiences one's "I" as a fabrication. Instead of "I am aware" there is only awareness. An instant of realization is worth more than a lifetime of philosophical dialogue.
— jgill

I think you ought to mean a life time of practice is worth more than an instant of realization. :P Especially if there is "nothing" to realize. — Nils Loc

:grin: Instances of realization appears to have the unfortunate effect of inflating the ego in many cases, oddly enough.

The whole reason we imagine the self is to ensure its continuity. — Nils Loc

:rofl: The continuity of imaginary beings can be imagined to be terribly important.

This is more a subject for Zen meditation. There one learns, or experiences one's "I" as a fabrication. Instead of "I am aware" there is only awareness. — jgill

Sartre must have been pretty zen. "Consciousness is consciousness of something." But one consciousness is consciousness that one is conscious of something.

"The self is not a relation, but the relation of the relation to itself." -- Soren Kierkegaard.

^ I read that line over and over for many years and never understood it until my partner pointed out that "relate" means tell/inform.

The self is the thing that tells you what you are being told. It is not consciousness of the moon, but consciousness that you are conscious of the moon.

I'm a big fan of Daniel Kahneman's System 1/System 2 model, and I wonder if that fits. System 1 is fast, eager, over-reliant on pattern recognition, and error-prone. System 2 is slow, lazy, algorithmic, and takes credit for everything. I suspect consciousness of the moon is System 1's job, and the relation is System 1's relation of that consciousness to System 2.

For instance, when we see a curtain that has fallen funny, System 1 sees it, does pattern recognition, matches a face to the folds, and tells System 2 there's a face in the curtain. We are only aware of seeing a face in the curtain, and duly freak out.

Thought my post would inspire comments. :cool:

I repeated verbatim what a friend who has practiced Zen for over twenty years said in another forum. I would argue with him that "empty awareness" wasn't possible, for in that state he would have been aware of that state.

Ironic, you deny the individual while presupposing it. Who’s this “one” who learns or has experiences, if not the individual person or subject? — aRealidealist

In fact, I'm denying the sense of self, not the one who experiences.

I would place more faith in neuroscience than Zen or philosophy. :smile:

One way to look at it is that your experience (or mine) is the closest anybody will get to whatever is happening. Each individual is incommensurate to the other individuals.
If that is not true, then something else is happening.

“”I” is a verb disguised as a noun”

I’m curious as to what your reflections are on “the self” — Mike5

There is a sense of self, but there are no selves.

There are feelings of being someone, without there being anyone.

People are zombies - there never were any people to begin with.

Elaborate.

What would you wish I elaborate on

You made four bizarre claims. Prove each of them.

Is there any sense to be made of a more “pearl” (soul) type view?

There is, but that largely falls under theology, philosophy seems to find it a hot potato.

The experience of selfhood is just that, an experience. The experiencer is an experience.

So anything experienced is an experience. The self is an experience and does not exist. So experiences do not exist independent of subjective observation. Solipsism, basically.

In virtue of what are those properties bundled?

In virtue of what are those properties bundled? — GodlessGirl

Well, exactly. If there is nothing to individuation of an entity but the composition of its property bundle, then there isn't any obvious criterion of similarity, let alone continuity between entities. As soon as any property changes even a tiny bit, you've got a different entity, and the one that was no longer exists.

In order to understand why a cup today is the same object as a cup yesterday, in spite of a myriad of tiny differences between them, or why I am the same person that I was yesterday, I would have to supplement a simple enumeration of properties with more structure. But as I add more and more to the initial bundle concept, the project begins to resemble stone soup. Which leads me to think that the very idea of a property is flirting with tautology.

You are certainly reaching far back in history - Ship of Theseus - for your argument.

All the philosophical banter about self has little if any impact and probably pales beside the dramatic shift of perspective Zen provides.

All the philosophical banter about self has little if any impact and probably pales beside the dramatic shift of perspective Zen provides. — jgill

The banter is almost koan like. One is left scratching there head as to why a flat out refutation of the self makes sense as if it ought to have been something fixed and unchanging in the first place (ie. a soul). Zen narratives are all about this kind of refutation of self, whereas I glean Zen is really about sitting with "empty awareness" and not thinking much. Though Zen is also committed to a Buddhist tradition and doctrine which guides moral action. So even if there is no self to die, no self to murder, there is still attachment to the world in the practice. You can't have your Zen that isn't Zen (cake and eat it too). You can't kill the Buddha if the man you'd kill is Buddha (says who?).

One might say that the necessary perceptions and attendant actions nominally ascribed to "a self" are the result of unknown forces. A person has no causal power born of the self. We have the illusion someone is driving the machine but this is just "empty awareness." Or my words are empty bullshit.