Agnostic.com

29 4

Is the self an illusion?

I don't mean from a hippy-dippy-trippy spiritualism perspective. I mean, from a cognitive neuroscience perspective: what is a self? I don't think we can find a part of the brain that's responsible for it, so it must be a construct, indistinguishable from self-concept. Moreover, Kahneman's work suggests that there are multiple "selves" with different agendas. If so, what does that imply about identity, agency, responsibility, etc.?

  • 6 votes
  • 24 votes
  • 5 votes
  • 13 votes
ejbman 7 May 22
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

29 comments (26 - 29)

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

I'm going to vote it's a thing.
It's the Egocentric Predicament. I can only view "reality" through my own experiences and perceptions. The fact that only I can own it, seems to indicate a self.

1

We don't surely know what "self" is and we should not be looking for answers by looking for a particular, physical component in our brain that governs the whole body, I think we are like "the whole is greater than the part of the sums" analogy, so we are a collection of a lot of different parts which alone arent shit but together they make an incredible being.

nezer Level 4 May 23, 2018
1

This post, and the lion's share of its ensuing discussion, are precisely emblematic of what keeps me on this site. Well done, OP, and thank you very much.

I voted for "No Self". I'm approaching it from my experience in the Buddhist tradition (In which I am admittedly a neophyte still). Evidently, there is some debate around the doctrine of anatta, or "no-self": some say the Buddha preached there is no self; some say he preached no such thing, but rather only that this or that is not that self. There is also the important distinction, reputedly made by the Buddha (and referenced, at least in passing, here somewhere, I believe) that not all questions need to be answered, or even pondered: what matters is that which leads to liberation from suffering, and everything else is a distraction and a waste of time--or worse.

Where this comes together for me is in my continually unfolding experience of realizing the truth of anatta in my life. I have changed a lot: my beliefs, opinions, ideas, etc. I'm no longer the person who _____ (fill in the blank with at least a dozen things). Did I lose something? Did I change? Was any of that "me" to begin with? When I look in those places, I do not find me.

There are other ways of looking, which Buddhism teaches--and when I look in those ways, I also do not find me: I am not my anger; I am not my thoughts; I am not my memories. I am not this. I am not that.

Where I'm at on the path at this time, I don't feel the need to look ahead and try to see where this line of inquiry ends up. It is enough for me to "peel away the layers of the onion", so to speak. I do not feel diminished, because none of it is me. I don't worry about where my "me" is, or whether I have one. The more of this not-me stuff I slough off, the better I feel--so I confidence in the process.

This is all off the cuff; I will have to read the thread thoroughly, in its entirety, and peruse the links and other resources listed.

1

I can't vote on this because I am always asking myself that very question.

If it does actually exist as energy, it likely will never be found.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:87766
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.