The "self" under materialism

tom111

So I don't post on here often, but I like to occasionally post on here to log my thoughts and hear responses from others. I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with.

Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. The immaterial represents the "soul", or the "self", which is the fundamental essence of what a human is. No matter what happens to the material (body), the immaterial core essence remains. This means you are the same person you were 5 minutes, 5 months, and 5 years ago, as this immaterial part of you remains.

Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter.

On the surface level, if we have a "self" in the materialist worldview, we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem. If you take a body, and slowly replace its atoms one by one with others, at what point do we say this is a "different" person? Whatever answer we draw up here, whether we say it's a different person at 10%, 50%, or 100%, is arbitrary. Of course, this replacement process goes on within nature as well.

We can make a similar argument if we neglect matter replacement entirely, and focus purely on matter rearrangement. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?

Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self".

Just envision it this way; take a person, replace all of the atoms of their body with other particles, shift the state of all of these particles by an arbitrary degree, and what has remained constant? This is what nature fundamentally does over time. Unless we draw up some arbitrary percentage (eg 30% of the matter has to be in the same state for it to be the "same person"), we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.

So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? There has been much matter replacement and rearrangement since then, so materially I have very little in common with this being. This is likely due to the fact that you have inherited memories from this person, due to causal similarities in brain structure, corresponding to said memories. However, you are in no way "materially" the same self. The "self" has no solid foundation in the material world, it is simply an idea created by minds to justify a feeling of continuity.

What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon, using past memories and experiences to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; a human being is empty of essence.

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist.

bongo fury

On the surface level, if we have a "self" in the materialist worldview, we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem. — tom111

Yes, and I don't see any deeper issue.

So why is it, when I look back at photos of myself from 5 years ago, I feel like the same person? — tom111

Well, why is it that when you look back at photos of your ship from 5 years ago, you feel like it's the same ship?

This is likely due to the fact that you have inherited memories from this person, — tom111

And likewise you have memories of the earlier ship.

What we are (in the materialist view) are simply piles of carbon, — tom111

Or living flesh, why not? Does a materialist have to be exclusively a physical chemist?

using past memories and ideas to compile a constant "self" that simply doesn't exist; — tom111

Agreed, if self is soul. But why can't it be the animal?

a human being is empty of essence. — tom111

Agreed.

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. — tom111

Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history?

In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't ~~exist~~ work — tom111

Again, of course they do, at a coarser level of description.

noAxioms

Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. The immaterial represents the "soul", or the "self", which is the fundamental essence of what a human is. — tom111

This reduces the immaterial part to the role of a nametag, but I've said as much myself. The proponents also (usually) give it more function than that, in which case one wonders why humans need such an inefficient system that other creatures do with a 5th the calories. Besides the point. You wanted the monist view. I don't think material is fundamental, but I still see no evidence that we're not purely a product of material physics.

Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter.

Both are easily demonstrated invalid, as you do in your post.

we inevitably run into the "Ship of Theseus" problem.
...
Unless we draw up some arbitrary percentage (eg 30% of the matter has to be in the same state for it to be the "same person")

Keep in mind that less than 1/10000th of your atoms are original, and less than 1% of your original atoms are in you. This is heavily dependent on when you define your original state.
Think of a candle flame. Is it the same flame as it was 3 seconds ago? We normally say yes, despite all its atoms being different from one moment to the next.

We can make a similar argument if we neglect matter replacement entirely, and focus purely on matter rearrangement. If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?

Well, if I take my dad's ashes and water and recreate a living dog out of it somehow, not many would say the dog is my dad. We're all composed of material from past and present beings, people and otherwise.

There's another thread going on about this. I said that despite everybody knowing sort of instinctively what makes me the same person as I was 5 minutes ago, each attempt to formally define how this works doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I can pretty much take apart any definition, especially one from a physicalist that doesn't posit some unassailable immaterial name-tag magic.

we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.

Arguably so, yes. Doesn't mean I don't think I existed yesterday, or so says one part of me. The rational part of me is agreeing with you. I have different parts with different beliefs. So do you.

As you say, it's a sense, a feeling. Such things are useful. Doesn't mean the feeling is truth. Useful and true are very different things.

Bartricks

↪tom111

I am puzzled by your view and approach.

You say at the outset that you are a materialist. But then you say that you think the self has nothing answering to it on the materialist view.

But you exist, yes? So there is at least one self: you. And you can be more sure that you exist than you can be that materialism is true. I mean, it'd be bonkers to conclude that you don't exist because the favourite theory of a non-existent person delivers that verdict, would it not?

So, why are you a materialist? Surely you should abandon your materialism until such time as you are satisfied that your own existence is consistent with it!

Art48

I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. — tom111

A different perspective is that I am consciousness, which is aware of sensations of various types: physical sensations, emotions, and thoughts. My ego is a thought or complex of thoughts which I believe to be the experiencer. Actually, the experiencer, the self, is awareness, consciousness, in which various sensations ebb and flow. I experience only sensations. A “material object” is an idea which I apply to certain bundles of sensations.

RogueAI

we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist. — tom111

Or just not believe in materialism.

180 Proof

↪tom111

we must conclude that the self is not solidly grounded in the material world, and thus it doesn't exist.
— tom111

Or just not believe in materialism. — RogueAI

Or consider anomalous monism instead.

Gnomon

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111

If you think of "Self" as a representation -- a self-image or mental model, not a ding an sich -- Its relation to material reality may become clearer. We can assume that all sentient creatures have some kind of self-image. But that intuitively constructed image is inward looking, not an external observation. The Self may begin simply as proprioception due to feedback to the brain about location of body parts. But for self-conscious beings, that abstract representation may become more complex, including comparisons to other beings. So, your self-image is similar to an avatar in a digital world, that you can manipulate intentionally. Yet, like a digital avatar or mirror image, the inner Self is not a physical object. Instead of a physical Being, it's a meta-physical Meaning. And Meanings don't exist in a purely physical world*1. Hence, our reality is both Physical and Metaphysical.

As 180proof noted, Anomalous Monism*2 views mental phenomena as Real but not Physical. Your Self is arbitrary in that it is to some degree under your rational control : a creation of your own mind. It's real in the anomalous sense that it is an exception to the rule, that most things are physical. And it's monistic in that it does exist in the same universe that all sentient beings share. So, the key to understanding the Ontological status of a Self-Image*3 is to accept that Reality consists of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Metaphysics, both Things & Ideas-about-things. :smile:

*1. Purely Physical World :
The universe prior to emergence of self-conscious brains was also mindless & pre-metaphysical

*2. Anomalous Monism is a theory about the scientific status of psychology, the physical status of mental events, and the relation between these issues developed by Donald Davidson. It claims that psychology cannot be a science like basic physics, in that it cannot in principle yield exceptionless laws for predicting or explaining human thoughts and actions (mental anomalism). It also holds that thoughts and actions must be physical (monism, or token-identity). Thus, according to Anomalous Monism, psychology cannot be reduced to physics, but must nonetheless share a physical ontology.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anomalous-monism/

*3. What is Self-Image in Psychology? How Do We Improve it? :
Self-image and self-concept are strongly associated, but they’re not quite the same thing. . . .
Similarly, self-image has a lot to do with self-esteem. . . . Identity is also a closely related concept but is also a larger and more comprehensive one than self-image.
Note -- Proprioception is not arbitrary. But Self-Image (visual) & Self-Esteem (emotional) & Self-Identity (social) are partly conscious constructs. Hence, some choice (conscious or sub-conscious) is involved.

Wayfarer

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111

Well, you're not a chair, because chairs are not intentional agents, and don't go around writing posts on philosophy forums. And a 'purely material world' such as what you posit, would have no intentional agents in it, so there would be no-one around to pose the question, or care about it.

Note the Ship of Theseus, 'a thought experiment about whether an object that has had all of its original components replaced remains the same object. According to legend, Theseus, the mythical Greek founder-king of Athens, had rescued the children of Athens from King Minos after slaying the minotaur and then escaped on a ship to Delos. Every year, the Athenians commemorated this legend by taking the ship on a pilgrimage to Delos to honor Apollo. The question was raised by ancient philosophers: After several centuries of maintenance, if every part of the Ship of Theseus had been replaced, one at a time, was it still the same ship?'

My answer to that is that it is the same ship, because it fulfils the same purpose, has the same form, and belongs to the same person. However, again, intentionality remains central.

As for the identity of human subjects, the question of the nature of the Self is really the same question as the question of the nature of the Universe, although in our materialistic age this will be far from obvious. However,

It is a perennial philosophical reflection that if one looks deeply enough into oneself, one will discover not only one’s own essence, but also the essence of the universe. For as one is a part of the universe as is everything else, the basic substance of the universe flows through oneself as it flows through everything else. For that reason one can come into contact with the nature of the universe if one comes into substantial contact with one’s ultimate inner being.

NOS4A2

↪tom111

I always thought the materialist ought to take a stand, here. For so long philosophers and people in general have reduced the self to near nothing: to a soul, an essence, an element, a homunculus, an organ, a narrative—a reductionism of the worst type—and the value of the rest has diminished in proportion. But weighing these species of selves on any scale will invariably reveal it to be little or nothing at all. Perhaps the proliferation of these kinds of stories has led to your own disillusion.

The ever-changing nature of the human being ought not to dissuade one from applying "selfhood" to it. Selves grow, change, and eventually fall apart; that much is obvious. But that it occupies the same unique time and place throughout its entire existence accounts for something. That it has a boundary that separates itself from the rest of the universe accounts for something. That we can point to it, observe it, and measure it from the moment it becomes its own until the moment it settles into dust, accounts for something, too. The "material", so much as that word means anything, is the sine qua non of the self, and consequently, what philosophers of self have routinely discarded. At any rate, from the beginning of the self until the end of it, the materialist has much more to work with when it comes to selfhood, and thus are better equipped to rescue the self from misuse.

unenlightened

A hurricane forms, storms about here and there making its presence felt, and then dissipates and loses its identity. There is no problem for a materialist in this, although a hurricane has no skin that separates it from the rest of the atmosphere. So what's the problem with a self being a pattern of energetic movement that arises and persists in a semi-permeable skin bag for a while, and then dissipates? Nobody says a hurricane doesn't exist because the air it is made of keeps changing...

Athena

Our sense of self is not all in our brains, but in every cell in our body. How we feel about ourselves and our lives is in our bodies. Our judgment of right and wrong is in our body and notions of right and wrong are recorded in our cells from the beginning of our existence. In general, it would be more correct to say, "I feel you are right", or "I feel you are wrong", because rarely are we actually weighing the facts and using logic to judge what is so. We are reacting and how we react is pretty automatic.

You don't believe me? Say to yourself "I am really sexy" and notice how your body reacts. Is your body giving you an "Oh, Yeah I am hot!" or a cynical "You are too fat or too old to be sexy." Want to invest $5000 in a hot new stock? What does your gut say about that? :chin:

My question is, without our material bodies, what can we experience? If we do not experience ourselves, reacting to other beings, can we have a sense of self? We do not just think who we are, we feel who we are in relation to others. How we feel about ourselves and our lives may have very little to do with our thinking. We may even realize our thoughts based on our feelings are not rational.

Athena

Wobbly, sure, with no solid foundation. But not entirely arbitrary, surely? You have the vehicle's service history? — bongo fury

If we do perhaps experience amnesia the people who think they know us will tell us who we are and who is important to who we are and not important to who we are. If we look like a male and chose to look like a female, surely there will be people to tell us about who we are. If our skin is dark, the White people in the neighborhood may wonder what we are doing there. Or if we are a Whitey in the wrong neighborhood someone will tell us we should not be there. Our sense of self is a little complex and some of us avoid our families because their opinion of who we are may not be to our liking. Who we are, depends to some degree, on those who are judging us.

180 Proof

↪unenlightened

:fire:

↪tom111

Ephemeral self-continuity, n o t static self-"identity" (i.e. Neurath's Boat contra Descartes Cogito). "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing.

Gnomon

I am myself a materialist (in the sense that I believe the material world is primary and that our subjective experiences arise directly from the physical) and have been trying to reconcile the idea of the "self", with a materialist worldview. The self, as I see it, is the "fundamental essence" of who we are; this sense of "I" we are all likely familiar with. — tom111

I don't label myself (my personal Self) as Materialist. But I also don't define Me as Spiritualist. Ironically, one definition of Spirit is "the essence of a thing". So, your definition of The Self could be construed as a spiritual concept; which may trigger the trolls. Therefore, due to the contentious religious baggage of "spirit", I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. Unfortunately, the trolls can sniff-out the implicit spiritual (essential) connotations.

From that Information-centric perspective, your Self is merely the Information (pattern ; arrangement ; structure ; relationships) that defines your Material (physical) & Mental (phenomenal) form. Unfortunately, you can't see a pattern with your eyes, but you can infer it with your reason, by detecting invisible inter-relationships. (see image below) :smile:

↪Agent Smith

Spiritual Essence (psychology) :
And now we come to the Spirit—the Essence that animates the mind and body.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/counseling-keys/202009/how-our-spiritual-essence-can-heal-us

What is Information Pattern? :
An information pattern is a structure of information units like e.g. a vector or matrix of numbers, a stream of video frames, or a distribution of probabilities.
https://www.igi-global.com/dictionary/information-pattern/14438

Is ‘Information’ Fundamental for a Scientific Theory of Consciousness? :
Re : physicist John A. Wheeler's "It from Bit" interpretation of Quantum & Information theories.
"In his proposed conception of the world, information is truly fundamental and is comprised of dual aspects—corresponding to the physical and the phenomenal features of the world."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-10-5777-9_21

Information philosophy is a dualist philosophy, both materialist and idealist. It It is a correspondence theory, explaining how immaterial ideas represent material objects.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/
Note -- in my thesis, that Both-And relationship adds-up to Monism : one essence, many manifestations.

Materially, we can define a "self" based on one of two quantities; the actual matter that makes up a thing, or simply just the arrangement of matter. — tom111

The "arrangement of matter" is its Form. And Matter is merely a "form" of Energy that our senses can detect (E=MC^2). So, I have concluded that Energy is transformed into Matter, via a process that I have labeled as EnFormAction, in order to suggest its relationship to Information-in-General (the generic ability to enform ; to create forms/patterns ; to cause change ; to carry meaning ). Energy is all around us, but invisible to human senses, until it takes on a measurable Material form : Mass/Matter/Substance. With that scientific knowledge in mind, your notion that the human Self is "just the arrangement of matter" makes sense.

The philosophical problem arises when we consider that the essence of Matter is invisible & intangible in its massless form (e.g. photons) Which raises the old Matter vs Spirit controversy. Since causal Energy can transform from immaterial Potential to material Actual, and back again, you can avoid the Ship of Theseus problem. Nature is not replace physical parts of a thing, it is merely changing the essential Form (arrangement) that makes a thing what it is. Even

↪180 Proof

says that "Self does not exist" as a material / physical thing". So, the Ontological question is this : in what sense does the Self/Soul exist? :nerd:

Under conventional, religious dualism, generally, a human can be divided into two distinct parts; material and immaterial. — tom111

That conceptual Dualism can be resolved into Monism, if we understand Body & Self as merely different aspects (instances ; expressions ; manifestations) of the EnFormAction process. For example, as an individual Photon is zooming through the cosmos, that building block of matter is invisible & massless. But when it energizes the visual purple chemicals in the eye, that photon is transformed into matter, and then back into energy (neural pulses). :smile:

Light is invisible because light does not emit light. To see something this something needs to emit, or reflect light
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-light-invisible
Note -- Photons are Potential Energy & Potential Matter. Only after transformation into Actual matter can they absorb & reflect light. This may sound counter-intuitive, but it's simply Quantum queerness.

pict--interrelationship-digraph-template-relations-diagram---template.png--diagram-flowchart-example.png

pict--interrelationship-digraph-template-relations-diagram---template.png--diagram-flowchart-example.png

The blocks represent physical things, or parts of things. But the arrows represent inferred functional (or meaningful) inter-relations. So, the Pattern per se is a mental construct.

180 Proof

@Agent Smith

I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things. — Gnomon

Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics?

Wayfarer

Information is not the subject of physics, which is concerned with the movement of bodies. Information is however conserved, stored and transmitted through DNA.

180 Proof

Information is ~~not~~ the subject of physics — Wayfarer

:roll:
Models + data = information (i.e. conjectures tested by deductions of experimental predictions); e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_physics

Agent Smith

I have adopted the modern notion of "Information" to describe the essence of all things.
— Gnomon
Given that "essence" denotes that which non-impermanently makes something what is and not something else (to paraphase Plato/Aristotle(?)), why isn't there a "law of the conservation of information" like – complementary to or entailed by – the conservation of mass-energy law, for instance? Why isn't "information" (i.e. "pattern", as you say, Gnomon) conserved in physics? — 180 Proof

To tell you the truth, a Google search on conservation of energy was negative although there was something in The black hole information paradox (Susskind, Hawking et all).

All I can say is

1. Information is substrate (matter) independent. "I'm sorry" can be written on a rock, copied onto paper, memorized, copied onto a text/word file, the possibilities are infinite. In a sense information uses physical stuff (matter & energy) for encoding purposes.

2. If I write a message, say "Forgive me", onto a paper and then toss it into a fire, the message is lost ... forever. I see no way the information can be retrieved from the ashes (a trope in many mystery novels)

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

I provided a wiki link highlit over the words "conserved by physics?" Your google-fu is weak, padawan. :joke:

Btw, I K.I.S.S. to avoid the fundamental physics topic of black hole entropy, which you mention, for @Gnomon's sake.

Agent Smith

↪Gnomon

Saw your relations diagram. Reminds of the seven bridges of Königsberg problem (status: solved, courtesy Leonhard Euler)

Also do read my reply to 180 Proof. Your fromulation of the self as a pattern reminds me of video game character classes like the ones you see in the Diablo series.

Assassin
1. Life 30
2. Agility 60
3. Strength 40
4. Defense 35
5. Mana: 70

Skill tree: Traps, illusions, poison, archery, daggers

:cool:

So if the self is a pattern (of information), when I read Aristotle's books, I'm in conversation, albeit one-way only, with him. But wait, his response to my questions can be inferred from his various positions on relevant issues? We can, in a sense, reconstruct Aristotle's mind from his corpus even though only partially - a half/quarter/third Aristotle. :cool:

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

Yes master?! :chin: :grin:

Gracias mi amigo.

That information is not conserved may be the good & bad news nonphysicalists are waiting for. Energy & matter, both, are conserved and if information is not, that can mean only one thing - information is nonphysical.

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related).

Agent Smith

Information is physical e.g. DNA, circuit-switches, computer programs, heat, etc. Every physical transformation is information; translating (i.e. compressing) information into an algorithm is abstraction (i.e. code). Yeah, abstract = nonphysical (insofar as 'nonphysical' means not causally related). — 180 Proof

Yeah, but if information isn't conserved and if matter & energy (physical) are then ...

Are you perhaps conflating the medium for the message?

Wayfarer

Ernst Mayr: ‘… The discovery of the genetic code was a breakthrough of the first order. It showed why organisms are fundamentally different from any kind of non-living material. There is nothing in the inanimate world that has a genetic program which stores information with a history ...’

The idea that ‘life is chemistry plus information’ implies that information is ontologically different from chemistry, but can we prove it? Perhaps the strongest argument in support of this claim has come from Hubert Yockey, one of the organizers of the first congress dedicated to the introduction of Shannon's information in biology. In a long series of articles and books, Yockey has underlined that heredity is transmitted by factors that are ‘segregated, linear and digital’ whereas the compounds of chemistry are ‘blended, three-dimensional and analogue’.

Yockey underlined that: ‘Chemical reactions in non-living systems are not controlled by a message … There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences’.

Yockey has tirelessly pointed out that no amount of chemical evolution can cross the barrier that divides the analogue world of chemistry from the digital world of life, and concluded from this that the origin of life cannot have been the result of chemical evolution. This is therefore, according to Yockey, what divides life from matter: information is ontologically different from chemistry because linear and digital sequences cannot be generated by the analogue reactions of chemistry.

At this point, one would expect to hear from Yockey how did linear and digital sequences appear on Earth, but he did not face that issue. He claimed instead that the origin of life is unknowable, in the same sense that there are propositions of logic that are undecidable. — What is Information? Marcello Barbieri

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

???

Agent Smith

↪Wayfarer

Interesting read (the excerpt). Last I checked, (digital) computers are essentially analog i.e. current is continuous quantity, can assume any value whatsoever. It's just that in computers electrical current occurs in a range, say 1mV to 2mV. Then computers are instructed to treat 1 mV - 1.5 mV as 0 and 1.5 mV - 2 mV as 1 and just like that we get digital from analog.

Agent Smith

??? — 180 Proof

DNA is the medium (paper), the message (information is in the sequence of nucleotides)

180 Proof

↪Agent Smith

No. A stone sculpture is informational. It's not merely a stone. DNA self-replicates because it is informational. It's not just organic compounds. An origami unicorn is informational. It's not simply paper. Etc.

Agent Smith

↪180 Proof

:ok:

khaled

↪tom111

If we decide we want to slowly re-arrange an individual into an entirely different organism, at what point can they no longer be considered the same "self"?

Both matter replacement and rearrangement occur in nature and prevent us from safely defining any solid, constant, material thing that we can call a "self". — tom111

I don't see this as an issue but more of what it SHOULD be like. Why makes you think there is an unchanging part of us (like a soul) in the first place?

Upon thorough examination, the idea of a "self" is as arbitrary as the idea of a "chair", or any other object. In a purely material world, concepts like these simply don't exist. — tom111

Add them to your ontology then if their non-existence bothers you. Check hylomorphism.

The "self" under materialism

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions