Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The self as an illusion is an interesting concept to play with. We think of ourselves as identities so that we can operate socially. However when one examines the moment to moment experience of consciousness the self is nowhere to be found.
Only if you look at things a certain way. There's real danger to believing that you lack actual subjectivity, its like reverse solipsism, and is basically the worst version of doomerism.
If you look at things dialectically and Materialistically, subjectivity can't be avoided
I've heard people advance the argument that since the self cannot be shown to exist, 'free will' is also absent and we can absolve ourselves of responsibility for our actions. I don't believe in the Judeo-Christian conception of free will but I still want to be involved in my decisions and choices, even if that is limited to an awareness.
But the self can be shown to exist, unless you deny the existence of subjectivity. this leads to hard determinism, what you referred to as no free will.
The productive, creative process itself, the drive to learn and be curious, to investigate, all of this leads to the conclusion that 1. There is some kind of greater will guiding us or 2. Humans have the ability to make determinations based on their experiences, and choose certain actions based on those experiences.
I've seen the deterministic argument that free will is an illusion caused by a chain of circumstances, but I don't buy it. I think that the view that free will is an illusion is itself a logical error: the result of a dependence of the tendency of dualism to try and turn everything into objects, rather than seeing each object within its relationships, coming together to form a totality. This tendency leads to vulgar empiricism and positivist views. These views always obscure social relationships, which are real, measurable and predictions can be made based on them.
The "I'm so deep I'm a nihilist" trope has got to go. Every TV show or movie where there is some supposedly hyper intelligent character, they always have the most vile, garbage philosophy.
I suppose it's early days for neuroscience but many functions of the mind have been linked with areas of the brain, except the generation of the self. That self seems to come about as a result of time spent in the world and is shaped by it so why can't we find it? Even if we do find a particular area of grey matter, it's not as if we will find a self molecule and be able to measure it, that's not how neural networks operate. The best we can say is the self is an organism with memory, a vehicle for genetic material that has become so complex that it's unable to discern what it is made of.
Well I disagree that "we can't find it". I think the inability to find the self is a result of the limitations of empiricism, whereas dialectical and materialist analysis has no problem locating the self within the changing relationships that define the individual, history and nature in context of each other.
And this is what empiricism really fails at: its great at defining an object, defining the parameters that constitute it, and isolating it as a subject of study, but absolutely falls short at being able to identify the relationships between "things" or the historic circumstances that give rise to them.
As observers, an over-reliance on one theory of knowledge, or epistemology, verges on the kind of ideological blindness usually associated with fringe fundamentalism. We wouldnt us a ratchet to hammer a nail, why would we insist that a single epistemic "tool" is the only one that is capable of determining truth?
Honestly I probably agreed with you more some years ago before reading Sam Harris's Free Will, which was so bad it set me on a very different path of inquiry.
I suspect the reason we can't find the self is the same reason we can't find the other conceptual objects in our imaginations. They feel real and they are useful but ultimately they are like money, religion, nation states, laws and insurance - purely conceptual and dependent on our shared belief in them.
I'm suspicious of the desire to lean too heavily on concepts such as the self and free will. Much of our societal structures past and present depend on their existence, how else can we accuse others of crime if the perpetrator didn't have a choice? It wasn't that long ago that we were prosecuting animals for the crimes listed in our statutes. Currently we don't believe other animals are capable of this level of agency but nobody has presented any compelling evidence, either way.
Famously, Kant stripped away all his preconceptions and could prove only the subjective (I think therefore I am), whereas you seem to deny everyone their subjectivity, even your own. In any case since you're interested in these questions, I assume then you'll reach a better understanding of these questions, just keep studying and growing on your own terms (which is contradictory to your own thesis, but the whole is always defined by contradiction.)
The last thing I will do is deny anyone else's experience but it sounds like you want to do that, all the while unaware of where that impulse originates. As if it percolated up into consciousness completely unbidden or did you will it into existence?
But what is experience, how can you find experience without a self doing the experiencing? I'm not trying to put it on you but it is consistent with your logic, as I understand it
The self is synonymous with experience. It's why the self is simultaneously a substantial entity and completely without substance. We remember what it felt like to be ten years old and yet every single cell that generated that sensation has long since been replaced by adulthood. People who receive traumatic brain injuries can become strangers to their family and even themselves. The self is a contrivance and an emergent property of a neural network. Ever changing, elusive and yet reassuringly familiar.
Okay, I apologize I went back and read your first post which said something like "the self doesn't exist is a fun concept to play with" when I was pretty sure you had said just "the self doesnt exist." I'm sitting here trying to find the thread that connects "the self doesn't exist" with your seeming acknowledgement of every aspect of it.
I agree its useful to test "wrong conclusions" for the reasons you state. You end up constructing consistent logic justifying it, and can witness for yourself where the reasoning goes wrong, and can speculate as to why. I think it makes relating to people convinced by faulty logic and conclusions easier to relate to, as well as gives you a hint to where their reasoning is off and you cans start to argue against it
I also had the feeling we were talking at cross purposes 😂 Language really shows it's limits when considering these topics, it's incredibly easy to mangle a sentence and give a completely different idea.
Impressed that you correctly detected the influence of Harris on my thinking although I didn't read that text in particular. I'm only just getting into this subject as an amateur but it seems that you have studied it formally?
Formally as in have had a university publish books and articles that I've written on it? No, I'm afraid I have very little university education, I'm largely self-educated. I support people having the opportunity to go to college, but my life just didn't work out like that. I'm all libraries, discussions, book sales, book clubs, writing and IRL political organizing. I've had some articles published but most of my writing is in notebooks.
I won't bore you with bio details, but after sort of rejecting Harris's vulgar determinism, I eventually discovered Rick Roderick's lectures on Philosophy and Human Values. The video quality is pretty old, but as a survey of western Philosophy course, I found this extremely useful and compelling. His course on Neitzsche is also very good. His course on 20th century philosophy, its first episode, Masters of Suspicion is a passionate defense of the self, free will, as well as the validity of exploring these questions.
I'm currently pulling on a thread where I am spending a lot of time thinking about Theses on Feuerbach by Karl Marx, the short but famous formulation wherein Marx "turns Hegel on his head." Feuerbach's formulation of God that begins the process of turning Hegel's logic against Hegel's own conclusions, established god as the embodiment of humans own best qualities, and externalizing them as an unreachable other, and how it functions as a tool of repression and intellectual domination finds some common ground with Harris's antireligious atheism. But this thread leads us closer to a kind of humanism, whereas Harris's atheism leads us further away from it. Its like atheism's main disagreement with religion is that it believes that science and industry should be mechanism that alienates us from our selves and each other, not the church. Personally, I would prefer not to be alienated from myself or from other people by any extrinsic mechanism of repression; I'd rather throw it off entirely.
I don't think it's necessary to have a formal education in any subject, it's more of a shortcut in the best case. An open curiosity and some logic for mitigating the biases from our reasoning is probably sufficient.
Superficially that is the appeal of Harris, he is articulate and strong on logic but it will only carry an idea so far. His stance on atheism is a good example of limitations of a purely rational approach to living in the world. I agree with his point that we probably would be better off without religion but we still need some of the spiritual elements. I suppose he would argue that he obtains this from an introspective practice which make his blind spots all the more surprising, given his obvious expertise in the area of self awareness e.g. Waking Up app and book. There's some interesting insight on this point by the producers of Decoding the Gurus podcast where they recently mused the rise of fascism. One other podcast on the fringe of philosophy that I've found entertaining and informative is The Very Bad Wizards, it's run by scholars for fun but I first became aware of many of the basic philosophical tenets there.
Thanks for the links, appreciate it.
Great discussion, thanks for sharing your perspectives and sources as well! Good luck on your inquiries!