I'm going to attempt to bring some conceptual clarity to the thread by outlining three different senses of 'self'.

First, the 'physical self'. What I mean by this is the sense in which there is a particular person typing this post, who can be identified and distinguished by use of pronouns and has a spatio-temporal location e.g "I touched the oven with my hand and burned myself". I don't think anyone (except possibly neeeel) thinks that this type of self doesn't exist. I wouldn't have bothered to bring this up, but RLK put scare quotes around "he" when referring to Hume which implies that RLK thinks Hume is denying this sense of self (Hume also isn't denying other senses of self, but hopefully that will become clearer in a minute).

Second, the 'transcendent self'. This is the view that RLK and Descartes seem to share; the self as a thinker of thoughts and an experiencer of experiences. Or, less esoterically, I think this view is reasonably summed up as the following claim: there is something that has brain states, but is not a brain state in itself. (Note: I think there could be a materialist version of this view, where there is some 'master' brain state that is 'the self', but I'm not convinced many people hold it)

Thirdly, the 'psychological self'. I'm using this term to broadly group together Hume's 'bundle theory' of the self, plus Lockean views on psychological continuity, and similar ideas. The view that the self is simply some set of brain states (memories, thoughts, emotions, sensory experiences etc) and nothing more fits in here.

So to try and reduce RLK's incredulity:

- No-one in RGT (except neeeel, maybe) denies the physical sense of self.
- Hume's argument is fairly compelling. I feel like a have a strong sense of self, but I can't detect any 'impression' of this self [b]over and a/b]bove[ the bundle of experiences, memories, emotions etc. neeeel's request that you describe the direct experience of the self that you claim to have may be hard (or impossible) but it's a pretty fair question, and potentially amenable to fMRI experiments so see if there's something different about your brain states when introspecting on the self from, say, mine. Of course, if souls exist then we may not see any difference anyway.

The problem I have with neeeel's views are, firstly, that he is a mereological nihilist (does not believe that composite objects exist - all that exists are 'simple' e.g. fermions and bosons or whatever a complete physics finds to be truly fundamental) so his arguments about the self seem redundant. I don't understand why his argument about the self is not simply derived from whatever argument underlies his mereological nihilism. That aside, this conversation from a previous thread on the soul captures my specific beef with his arguments about the self:

.

Zumby, you are just simples arranged personwise

I did not know that mereological nihilism was a thing...

It's not, presumably.

If a person breaks his arm, and thus not able to use it, it doesn't mean that the arm is, of course, the prime mover and therefore there is no "soul". The brain likewise can dysfunction and .....

The reality is, but of course not fitted into the materialist lexicon, that in the process of "perception", or "thinking" the nervous system is a "reflector" of the "supersensible" or "real reality".

The "soul" is not "materialistically subsistant" which was well known to the ancient thinkers/doers but lost in the materialistic milieu which includes Locke and Hume; "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist".

An example of perception: a man sees a blue flower and in this perception the soul/spiritual or better word , in keeping with this thread, astral body/ego(I) enter into the flower , are immersed within, and actually "are flower" when the cognitive aspect of the human being then activates, reflecting its present state, and ergo he experiences "blue flower".

A lot to stomach, I know, but this in no way contradicts the fact that if i damage the occipital aspect of the human brain I would very well damage "sight"; likewise the left side of the brain for speech, etc...

The materialistic but actually academic mantra is: "the brain does it, the brain does it, the brain does it,.... the brain is everything from thought to feelings to will (motor nerves).

You can't live( on the earth) without a physical earthly body but this in no way precludes living within the higher realms of the cosmos without materiality which is why OP asked; "what is the soul". The science of the day (materialistic) denies "birth" and "death" and consequentially "morality". The ancient peoples, of whom you once were, were able to see the human soul/spiritual being prior to birth and after death(a clairvoyant perception-read non material) but man has progressed for in that clairvoyant state he had more of a "group I" as witnessed by "I and Abraham are One".

The "I" or "Ego" has been present as written by Moses in Genesis but cloaked or not as powerful within the individual man with the culmination of the supposed "egoless" state of the Buddha. The human "Ego' hit the ground running during the Roman Empire and therefore we have , for the first time the concept of "citizen" and at that time mankind was immersed within the materiality of the earth to an nth degree and the Savior of mankind came to earth, and we have Golgotha to which He then entered into the hearts of all men for the refurbishment of the human state, within time, for each and all.

Neeel sorry if this has been covered but in what senses are brains and morals dissimilar given that neither exist? What is the difference between a brain and a unicorns non existence?

stuff exists. "brain" is a concept , something that exists only as the content of thought, but this concept points to a specific arrangement of stuff ( simples arranged brainwise ... my new favorite saying since I just saw it on wiki). While there is no actual brain existing as an inherent separate "thing", we can point to something in reality and say, thats a brain. Unicorns and morals, are both concepts, but we cant point to anything in reality and say, thats a unicorn, or thats a moral.

I guess this answers well nameds question about whether I believe the reality exists. But I would clarify that I wouldnt make the distinction internal or external. thoughts arent internal reality, and "out there" isnt external reality. Its all just reality

Okay cool so you can distinguish based upon whether there's a material thing the concept refers to.

I suppose. I am aware that concepts about brains etc are just stories too. Its just that these stories seem to be useful and at least reflect some properties of reality.

If you're not distinguishing between the reality of what goes on in our heads and what goes on out there, it's all just reality, then I don't think you have to restrict yourself to considering concepts as useful that refer to things out there. Morality can then be a part of reality as it seems to be useful.

Yes, I agree that morality can be useful. Still doesnt exist though. And useful is only a concept that works in relation to other concepts.

And I am distinguishing between the reality of what goes on in our heads, and what goes on out there. What goes on in our heads is ALL fiction . But some of it is more useful than others.
What I meant was, there isnt actual internal and external realities.

Neeeeel,

Where is the location of your consciousness with regards to your body? Is it not the head area?

Are you special enough to expand it, astral project it, or move it to your foot?

Seeing as how this is not just some idea you can wish away, why won't you acknowledge this phenomena is sufficient to conclude you have a self?

I dont know the location of consciousness.

Sure, because the eyes are set in the head, and eyes are a main sensory organ, it seems to many that they can conclude that consciousness is in the head. But this doesnt follow. If you close your eyes, and concentrate on a sensation in your foot, is the consciousness of that sensation still in the head?


No. Are you saying that the self has control over consciousness?

What isnt some idea I can wish away? That consciousness resides in the head? You have yet to show that its true, before claiming that I am simply wishing it away.

Consciousness is definitely in your body, but some claim to be able to astral project, but it doesn't matter. My point is that you definitely have a location of consciousness. (possibly other brain in a vat scenarios, but that's out of bounds)

You can't dissolve it. It's there bro.

I am not trying to dissolve it. What gave you that idea?

Even if this were true, and I dont necessarily agree, it doesnt make consciousness a self. Consciousness has no control over what happens, it doesnt judge or decide, think or do. Consciousness is simply the perception of experience. Further, consciousness isnt separate from experience. There isnt a consciousness here, experiencing a sound over there. The sound, the experience of the sound, and the awareness of the sound, are all the same "thing".

Meh, semantics.

"There isnt a consciousness here, experiencing a sound over there. The sound, the experience of the sound, and the awareness of the sound, are all the same "thing"."

Did you just rip a bong hit? Or is the brain, the bong, and the weed all the same thing?

(rhetorical)

Not at all. If consciousness doesnt do, think, judge or decide anything ( all characteristics of a self) then how can it be called a self?

That a conscious being is powerless to overcome his environment, if true, is irrelevant. As long as there is a locality of consciousness experiencing distinct experiences, it counts as a self imo.

You are free to do that. It in no way reflects the reality of things. You can label your big toe the self, and it gets you just as far as labelling the consciousness the self, neither has any of the characteristics that we commonly assign to the meaning of the word "self". If you are just assigning "self" as a meaningless label to a location of consciousness, then fair enough. But Im pretty sure thats not what you are doing.

If someone hits the toe of the body I live in with a hammer, it's going to bother me, and not you, obviously.

But, if it were your toe, I think you might have some objections.

You live in a body? How strange. How did you get in? How do you get out? How do you control the body? do you pull on strings or something? or is there a little control room you sit in inside the head, where you can press buttons and move joysticks about? Or does the body just do whatever , and carries you around against your will?

anyway, the fact that hitting a toe on a body causes pain, still does not prove the existence of a self.

locality of consciousness with distinct experiences = sufficient example of a self. Case closed.

As I said, this is only true if you are limiting your definition of self to "locality of consciousness with distinct experiences". If you definine self as doer, thinker, decider, actor, or any of the other characteristics that most people would agree make up a self, it makes no sense at all.

Thanks for clarifying. Shows how little I know about the origins of these philosophies.