I personally don't bother with labeling. I just observe and increase my awareness by observation. I treat philosophy as a process of melting and dissolving into the universe. Much of this skill comes from practicing Tai Chi for 30 years. It's a different process from most, but my sense is that Bergson used this approach. Certainly the ancient Daoists did the same. Nothing fundamentally ever changes, so ancient methods and processes are still useful. When one closely observes oneself, all there will be is memory.

Memory is not flawed, it changes and is affected as is everything else. Wherever it may be it is where each if us is. And if course it/we will evolve.

↪Thanatos Sand Memory is not flawed, it changes and is affected as is everything else. Wherever it may be it is where each if us is. And if course it/we will evolve.

Of course memory is flawed; that's why people misremember things as much, if not more, as they accurately remember them. That is flawed. And no, it is not where each of us is; its' where the person where the memory is. And the fact things evolve doesnt' take away from their being flawed; in fact, being flawed is usually a main reason for that evolution.

I provided a link to some research. Among athletes and artists, this sense of body memory, is well understood and cultivated as it is in martial arts practice. This is why I suggest philosophers to stop reading books and spend their time experiencing life. Artists and musicians express philosophy with far greater depth than words because it is closer to the actually experience.

It's not flawed. It is representative of the person as that person experiences and understands things subject to change. It is exactly what it is and it is creating, exploring, learning and changing. It is living.

I provided a link to some research. Among athletes and artists, this sense of body memory, is well understood and cultivated as it is in martial arts practice.

Sorry, none of this changes the fact that memory is flawed as I showed above.

This is why I suggest philosophers to stop reading books and spend their time experiencing life. Artists and musicians express philosophy with far greater depth than words because it is closer to the actually experience.

People can both read books and experience life. I'm sorry you never realized that. And your argument that artists and musicians express philosophy with greater depth is both unfounded and is itself philosophy. Ironic.

Flawed is your subjective evaluation. I see it as simply life experiencing life.

↪Thanatos Sand It's not flawed. It is representative of the person as that person experiences and understands things subject to change.

And its still flawed because it misrepresents both internal and external experiences. And it is not representative of a persons experiences since a person forgets more than they remember. You really need to go look up the word "flawed." You don't really understand it.

Wherever it is it is. It simply is.

↪Thanatos Sand Flawed is your subjective evaluation. I see it as simply life experiencing life.

No, flawed is the correct use of the definition of the word and the correct description of human memory. Just ask someone who was convicted by flawed testimony based on flawed memory. Again, you need to look up that word.

↪Thanatos Sand Wherever it is it is. It simply is.

Uh....huh. And many, if not most, things--including memory--are still flawed. But I forget you don't understand the word.

I simply accept life for what it is. Constantly changing and evolving memory. It's actually quite beautiful as people who practice the arts may discover.

That has nothing to do with, nor counters, anything I said, and I practice the arts. So, I'll leave you with your flawed definition of "flawed" and move on.

The use of the word as it pertains to yourself is your own choice, and if you feel you are flawed then who am I to disagree. However, I have no such feeling about myself.

Nope, the use is the English language's. You've forgotten it has a say in this.:

"flawed
[flôd]
ADJECTIVE
blemished, damaged, or imperfect in some way"

And now that you are actually claiming you are perfect, the sign of a disturbed person, I am truly out of here. Ciao.

Nope. You are describing yourself as flawed. I am simply accepting myself as a life in the process of creating and learning. I see no flaw in this, just a forever process. Maybe you shouldn't be so harsh on yourself. I'm not.

When one closely observes oneself, all there will be is memory. — Rich

Assuming for the sake of charitability that this is an accurate account, all it could be taken to truthfully recount is that 'when you closely observe yourself, all there will (seem) to be is memory'. Why do you assume that it is the same for others?

I don't. I invite others to explore themselves for 30 years or more and report their findings. It's all about exploration. I am only reporting my findings for others to consider. There are others who have reported similar, but it is experiential in nature and symbolic language descriptions of any sort are going to be inadequate and possibly misleading.

I don't see how we can separate consciousness from the physical.

OK, well I meditated for many years and practiced Tai Chi for many years also, and have tried to "know myself" through general self-awareness in all my activities and particularly in creative activities such as writing, painting and playing music for more than forty years, and I have not found what you claim to have found about the self at all.

If "symbolic expressions" are "inadequate and possibly misleading" then why not just accept that the self is an unfathomable mystery? I think that would be a fair acknowledgement of the limitations of discursive rationality,

Why should we restrict something as all-encompassing as the self to some determinate model or other; whether the model is "holographic", based on memory, or whatever?

I don't see how we can coherently conjoin them.

You yourself, is a perfect example of how it's done.

OK, well I meditated for many years and practiced Tai Chi for many years also, and have tried to "know myself" through general self-awareness in all my activities and particularly in creative activities such as writing, painting and playing music for more than forty years, and I have not found what you claim to have found about the self at all. — John

Ok. What did you discover about yourself in any it all of the activities? My b discoveries are very clear, unified, and indivisible among all of my activities which included Tai Chi, various sports, piano, drawing and painting, dancing and writing. All share exactly the same fundamental experience.

That begs the question.

I discovered that the self is ineffable, cannot be captured in any model and is best discovered and expressed through evocation in poetry. music, painting, other arts and disciplines, love, faith and indeed in everyday life.

Well, very, very different than my discoveries which are full of symmetries and deeper understanding of the nature of creativity and life. Different strokes for different folks.

Claudio Arrau discovered precisely the same feeling that I did about the nature and expression of the soul.

https://youtu.be/xMG247zUzB0

It could be question begging within a specific and in my opinion, incorrect framework. It's more an example of ostensively defining it. When has there ever been a real example of consciousness that wasnt dependent upon a physical process to manifest? And, when has there ever been an instance of 'self' without consciousness?

I don't see how we can separate consciousness from the physical. — La Cuentista

The traditional method is to upload your consciousness to a computer. But I wouldn't recommend it personally. I don't see how we can separate you from me.

If you look, I have said nothing about the physical or its separation from consciousness; I have been considering identity. But for the ardent physicalist, let's say that software is substrate independent; there is always a medium, of polarisations on magnetic tape, or laser burns in a plastic disc, or residual charges on a silicon chip, or patterns of neural connectedness. But the patterned structure and internal relations and transformations are something different from a few pounds of grey meat. To put is crudely one can separate consciousness from the physical with one well placed bullet. Disrupt the structure, and the person becomes a corpse. Therefore the person is not the body, but the structure and process.

There is digestion in my stomach, @Unenlightened. There is digestion going on in your stomach.

Perhaps these differ not in being different digestions, but only in what is being digested.

There is only one digestion, manifest in different stomachs.

My apologies; I wasn't referring to your post directly, and see why you thought so. I had in mind the quanta of pseudo-physics that mysteriously appear and then vanish, and the pissing competitions.