Juice

Great discussion, thanks for sharing your perspectives and sources as well! Good luck on your inquiries!

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.

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

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

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.)

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.

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.

The Book Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahnneman. Weird self help name, but its a book on biases, research which Kahnneman won the nobel prize. Once I started questioning my preconceptions it completely changed my whole perspective on the world. Its like that list of fallacies that you study in philo 101, but they're not like dialogical fallacies they appear in our own thinking. And "experts" are more likely to get fooled in their own fields of research than laypeople when asked trick questions

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

Everything is mint flavored

The ball was red, like a red rubber ball. The person was sort of indistinct from the neck up, it was more like my view was focused on the ball itself and didn't see a face, but it was a man, wearing a white shirt and dark tie, and dark pants. The ball was about the size of a baseball, wasn't completely smooth and shiny, sort of a matte with a slight grippy texture. Table was square, wood, like a medium brown color. The ball rolled off the table and bounced a few times.

All these decisions were automatic when reading the prompt, it's what I saw.

I've just become aware of aphantasia myself, I have a few family members who have it apparently. I was talking to my BIL about it the other day, I was saying how I'm a big fan of reading, but I mostly read nonfiction. He said he doesn't read much, mostly biographies, but fiction doesn't do much for him because he can't picture anything in his head. I can picture everything in great detail when I read fiction. Its interesting because our minds work very differently

Elon Musk loves a fake presentation.