Some have called Hume a Bundle Theorist when it comes to the question of the self.

That's interesting. Thank you.

So, how would you explain consciousness?

You ask me for evidence of reincarnation etc. You are the one who in the OP said resurrection and reincarnation, and immortal. Not me. Did you read what I wrote? I’ve been saying those are essentially useless to what is otherwise a good question.

Being me feels like being a self — Truth Seeker

What does the term “feels like being a self” mean? Can you describe the “illusion” a bit better?

I posit that you have some idea of what a soul is already on your head; some idea of immortal; some idea of reincarnation or movement of souls…
And these illusions are getting in the way of considering “what is the true nature of the self”.

Describe how some thing can feel like this “being me” and then “being a self” and how being me can “feel”. And why do you keep using “me” anyway?

If the “self” is not, we should be able to form sentences about “what is true nature”, without using the term “self”.

Why would you yourself need to to use the term “me” and “I” so much?

I am asking - I honestly have no idea myself, but there “I” go again.

I agree that we are all unique. The reason we are unique is because we are products of the interactions between unique genes, unique environments from conception to the present, unique nutrients from conception to the present and unique experiences from the womb to the present. If these groups of variables were identical for everyone we would be identical in our thoughts, emotions, words, and actions.

It feels like my locus of consciousness is behind my eyes and between my ears. I imagine it feels that way for you also.

Our words reflect our experiences. That's why we have words such as "I" and "me". I feel like a conscious individual being.

Have you read the book I mentioned in my first post in this thread?

What is the true nature of the self? — Truth Seeker

Isn't one's physical body the true nature of the self? The moment the body dies, mind also dies truly and eternally.

We are not our body, but we appear to be embodied. I agree about the mind dying when the body dies.

We are not our body, but we appear to be embodied. I agree about the mind dying when the body dies. — Truth Seeker

What do you mean by "we appear to be embodied"? Can you imagine yourself existing without your body?

Rather than a single entity, the self is really a constellation of mechanisms and experiences that create the illusion of the internal you.

We only emerge as a product — Quoting the description of the book

“…is really a constellation…”
“…emerge as a product…”

These contradict the statement:

the illusion of the internal you. — Quoting the description of the book

Instead of “I” and “we”, the pronoun is still “it” so something “is really” according to the author who says “the self is really a constellation”, and so where is the illusion? How is reference to an illusion not a contradiction with reference to a constellation or a product?

It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing.

Did you read the book or not? You need to read the book to understand why there is no "You" inside your head.

Do you understand it? Honestly I’m wondering if you are asking me to read it so I can explain to you how a “product” and “a constellation” is not an “it” but is instead “an illusion”?

I am assuming you posted this to talk about what you understand about it.

The word "illusion" means "not what it seems". That's all there is to it.

Hello everybody, first post in the forum! (Be kind :) ) Thinking about the top post, I believe there should be a distinction between what I think they call the minimal self, the sense of unity of the self of a single moment and the diachronic self, that persists through time and has some kind of identity.

From what I understand most people accept the unity of the minimal self as something that is real, that it is built on neurobiological processes and that it is embodied. These processes produce the experience of self (sense of agency, sense of ownership, the immunity principle of self and the non-conceptual first-person content of self). There are some who deny this unity (no-self theories) and I think they support that the sense of self is a set of symbols that appear and disappear in random ways. To be honest I do not find these no-self theories convincing, because, as the critics of these theories say, if it is random then it should not be always present in me (or maybe some moments I should have 2 or even more selves in me) and it should not be present in every person out there.

The continuity-identity of self on the other hand, is much more controversial and this is probably the one that is considered an illusion. Those that support this illusion claim, I think mainly say that a) there is no part of the mental states that constitute the minimal self that remains unchanged through time, so there is no core that is “saved” to form the identity of self (something that would remain constant, could be the physical manifestation of self) and b) any causal relation between changing states is not sufficient to form a diachronic identity (one way I understand it is that my last moment being alive is causing my first moment being dead, but the self is not there any more, so causality does not save the self. There are also the Parfit examples.)

But if the diachronic self is an illusion, there are two possibilities, that this illusion is constructed randomly or that there is a neuronal mechanism that produces it. If it is random, shouldn’t we get exceptions? Moments when I lose myself or find multiple “my selves”? How something random can be so catholic in the population? If on the other hand is based on a mechanism (neuronal process), why not say that this process (whatever might actually do) is the basis of self?

Finally, I would like to point out that we are talking about the illusion of self, then we are talking about the illusion of free will and then we are talking about the illusion of the subjectivity of consciousness. I would say, once it is luck, twice a coincidence, three times a patern. Three phenomena not completely unrelated that we are called to basically disregard them as fake and irrelevant. Maybe, the simplest answer could be to acknowledge that we simply don’t understand them yet.

Well that settles it.

Illusion means seeming as opposed to being. “Self seems…” is better than “self is…” because self is not and only seems to be.

Right? Do I have it?

Still says nothing about the self, only defines illusion.

I guess you just want me to read the book.

Really was hoping to dialogue.

Frankly, isn’t it an illusion to think the self is an illusion? You should just stop thinking and talking about all of this no matter what your answer to that question. But then, what did you expect to accomplish by this OP?

Let me try one more time to dialogue.

Let’s say I posit a pink unicorn. I just say “pink unicorn is the the thing that hops, kicks, jumps, that perceives, that knows, that posits things like itself to itself, and that speaks about all of this to other pink unicorns.” Then someone comes along and says “pink unicorns are an illusion, they don’t exist.”

So I then say, “okay, let’s banish the concept of pink unicorn. But I still need to explain all the kicking and positing of known experiences, etc. So from now on, since there is no pink unicorn, I will never use the term again, since I want to continue to have dialogue about these observations but without any illusion in it.”

We should be able to take illusions and illusory references out of any discussion among we truth seekers.

Why do you yourself keep saying “I” and “we” and “you” and “itself” and “self” if these are illusory and if you are trying to explain what is not an illusion but what is real?

Can you just refer to “it” instead of referring to “yourself”? That might weed out the illusion of this “self” but somehow communicate the account of all this seeming.

The impossibility of discussing this without reference to “I” or “you” or even just “itself” should give us pause to keep looking and not think we’ve said enough by saying what an illusion is.

It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing. — Truth Seeker

For you to have been experiencing a simulation, hallucination, dream or illusion, you still need the physical body. No one can have all those experiences without having a biological body and brain. Therefore your reply is not making sense. Would you agree?

Welcome to the forum.

I am quoting ChatGPT 4:

The concepts of the minimal self and the diachronic self represent different aspects of personal identity and consciousness in the field of philosophy, particularly in the study of the self and identity. Here’s a breakdown of these concepts and how they compare:

Minimal Self
Definition: The minimal self is a concept referring to a person's immediate, present-tense sense of self. It is the basic, core self-awareness that is present in the moment, without any extended reference to one’s past or future.

Characteristics:

Immediate: It is concerned with the "here and now," focusing on present experiences and sensations.
Pre-reflective: It operates without the need for introspective thought or reflection on one's existence or identity over time.
Fundamental Awareness: It involves an awareness that one is the subject experiencing or undergoing an experience, often described as the sense of "I" or "me" in the immediate sense.
Philosophical Context: The minimal self is often discussed in contexts such as phenomenology, where philosophers like Edmund Husserl and later Zahavi delve into the structures of experience and immediate self-awareness.

Diachronic Self
Definition: The diachronic self refers to the aspect of self that extends across time. It includes a continuity of identity that spans past, present, and future experiences, forming a coherent narrative or story of oneself.

Characteristics:

Extended: It is concerned with the self across time, integrating memories of the past and anticipations of the future into a coherent identity.
Reflective: It often involves reflective self-awareness, where one thinks about one’s life as a continuous story or narrative.
Personal Identity: It addresses how a person remains the same individual despite various changes over time, considering aspects like memories, personality traits, and life experiences.
Philosophical Context: Philosophers such as John Locke and Derek Parfit have discussed the diachronic self, focusing on issues like personal identity, memory, and moral responsibility over time.

Comparison
Temporal Scope: The minimal self is about the immediate moment, lacking any temporal depth, whereas the diachronic self encompasses an extended timeline, integrating the past, present, and future.
Conscious Awareness: The minimal self involves a basic, possibly non-reflective awareness of selfhood in the present moment. In contrast, the diachronic self requires a higher level of self-reflection and narrative construction.
Function and Focus: The minimal self is more about experiencing and reacting in the present, which can be crucial for immediate survival and basic interactions. The diachronic self, however, is key to one’s overall life narrative, responsible for actions and decisions informed by a sense of personal history and future goals.
These two concepts of self highlight different aspects of what it means to be a person, one focusing on the immediate and fundamental aspect of experiencing consciousness, and the other on the continuity and narrative of one's identity over time. Both are essential for understanding the complex nature of human self-awareness and identity.

The question of whether the self is an illusion is a profound and contentious issue that spans philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and even areas of spirituality. Different disciplines and perspectives provide various answers:

1. Buddhist Philosophy
In many schools of Buddhist thought, the self is considered an illusion. This perspective holds that the notion of a permanent, unchanging self is a misconception. Instead, what we consider the "self" is merely a collection of changing phenomena, including physical sensations, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness. The concept of "anatta" or "non-self" is central here, suggesting that realizing the illusory nature of the self is key to achieving enlightenment.

2. Western Philosophy
Western philosophical views on the self vary widely:

Humean Perspective: David Hume famously argued that upon introspection, one does not encounter any fixed self but only a bundle of sensations and experiences. According to Hume, the self is more a product of our imagination, as we tend to think of our identity as some kind of underlying essence when it's actually just a collection of changing perceptions.
Kantian View: Immanuel Kant posited that while our empirical self (the self as we experience it) is knowable, there is also a transcendental self (the self that experiences) which we cannot directly know but must assume to exist as the condition for the possibility of experience.
3. Neuroscience and Psychology
From a scientific standpoint, some neuroscientists and psychologists suggest that the self is a construct created by the brain to organize and integrate information. This construct:

Functional Purpose: Serves to create a coherent narrative from the myriad of sensory inputs and internal dialogues.
Illusion of Continuity: Offers an illusion of continuity in an individual's life. This is seen in the way memories, personality traits, and personal narratives are woven together into what feels like a continuous identity.
4. Cognitive Science
Cognitive scientists might argue that the self, while being a constructed narrative, is not necessarily an illusion but a functional entity. The "self-model" used by our brains helps in predicting actions and planning future activities, which is crucial for survival and social interaction.

Conclusion
The question of whether the self is an illusion depends significantly on what we define as the "self" and the theoretical or practical lens through which we view it. From a strictly empirical and materialistic viewpoint, the self could be seen as an illusion—there is no singular, unchanging essence that is the self. From a functional and phenomenological standpoint, the self, though perhaps a construct, serves essential roles in human cognition and social interaction.

This ongoing debate is central to many disciplines and continues to challenge our understanding of human consciousness and identity. Each perspective brings valuable insights into what constitutes the self and how it influences human experience.

I disagree. I could be a disembodied soul experiencing the simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion that I am in a human body, in a universe where there are other humans and other species.

You don't have to read the book if you don't want to. My recommendation to read it is just that - a recommendation.

I am convinced by the contents of the book that the self is an illusion. If you want to assess the contents of the book you will have to read it. I am not going to copy and paste an entire book into my posts - that would breach copyright laws.

I disagree. I could be a disembodied soul experiencing the simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion that I am in a human body, in a universe where there are other humans and other species. — Truth Seeker

Can you prove that is the case with some evidence? Or is it just your guessing or imagination?

It is impossible to test the simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypothesis. Just as it is impossible to test the solipsism hypothesis.

According to Hinduism, we are all souls plugged into an illusion called Maya. All we see, hear, smell, taste and touch are part of this illusion called Maya. Allegedly, we reincarnate in Maya according to our karma. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of the illusion called Maya.

Ok fair enough. Two questions.

1. I was not asking you to test the simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion hypothesis. But I was asking you to provide the evidence that your claim is true and real (not guessing and not imagination). That is totally different issue. Would you say so?

2. Are you a Hindu? Because your reply seem to be concretely based on the Hinduism in its principles.

This is what I originally said:

It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing.

I didn't say it was actually the case. How could I possibly know what the actual case is? There is no way for me to test the idea that what appears to be real is part of a simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion.

No, I am not a Hindu. I am an agnostic atheist materialist monist.

We are not our body, but we appear to be embodied. I agree about the mind dying when the body dies.
— Truth Seeker

What do you mean by "we appear to be embodied"? Can you imagine yourself existing without your body? — Corvus

I suppose, theoretically, I could have my brain removed and put in a jar that keeps it alive, and is wired to sensory apparatus so I could still perceive what's near me. My guess is I would still be conscious, and still myself. My brain is where my consciousness lies. I can lose any number of body parts, and still be my self.

But if my brain had been removed at birth, and put in that jar, I certainly would not be the same self I am now, and I would not bet that there would be any consciousness or self at all. My body, every aspect of it, helps shape my self, even if that self is located in the brain. I would be an extremely different self if I had been born without arms or legs. I'd be different, though to a lesser degree, if I'd grown to 5' 10", instead of 6' 3". And different to a still lesser degree if I wasn't immune to poison ivy.

The body is a life-support system for the brain. Ultimately, everything does what it does in order to keep the brain alive, even if one things immediate job is to keep, day, there heart pumping. But the brain can't very well ignore everything all of that. It all goes into shaping the self.

I didn't say it was actually the case. — Truth Seeker

I see. So the OP is not the actual case. You have been talking the whole lot under a simulation/hallucination/dream/illusion. Got you. Ok, please carry on. :wink:

What do you mean by "So the OP is not the actual case."?

I said "It's possible that my body, the Earth, the universe, and all the other living things including you, are all part of a simulation or a hallucination or dream or illusion that I am experiencing." The key words here are "It's possible." I didn't say that it actually was the case.

I did answer the second question by editing my initial answer as I had initially forgotten to answer the second question.

Do you have a religion?

I am convinced by the contents of the book that the self is an illusion. If you want to assess the contents of the book you will have to read it. I am not going to copy and paste an entire book into my posts - that would breach copyright laws. — Truth Seeker

The idea is, if you want someone to believe the things in a book you read are true, then you should give some specifics about what the book says. We can't all just tell everyone to read books x, y, and z. We can't all read every book there is. And we're not all going to accept the word of someone saying, "You will agree with me if you read the book." Quoting the entire book is not what I'm suggesting. But, since getting people to read the book, or at least agree with you, is obviously the point, a little detail would help.

I think my self is something like music, with notes and chords like a piano. There's a physical component, and intellectual and emotional ones.

Or I might think of it as a landscape like in the Divine Comedy. I can go exploring with my Virgil.

The fact that I have to resort to metaphors to think about it doesn't mean it's a illusion.

I didn't say that you will agree with me if you read the book. I expect people to make up their own minds about everything. I have never asked anyone to agree with me about anything.

If anyone wants to discuss the book with me, chapter by chapter, I am happy to do so.

In an earlier post, I quoted ChatGPT 4 - if you want to discuss that I am happy to do that, too.

I can't really summarise the book in a few words. I read the book almost five years ago. I still have the book and would be happy to go through it again if anyone wants to discuss it with me.