This seems to suggest that you support some version of a process ontology. You claim that, simply put, there is not a table, but a process of tabling happening. And there is not a Me, but a process, perhaps composed of a number of subordinate processes (such as arm-movings, lung-inflatings and synapse-firingings).

Correct so far?

This is a reasonable, abbreviated formulation of one version of TAG.

This begs the question. You're just asserting something without argumentation or addressing the TAG arguments in support of (1). Platonic realism is a good place to start as Van Til used this as the earliest example of what he called the rational-irrational difficulty attendant on all non-theistic thought - it always reduces to abstract universals and abstract particulars and you can never bring the two into meaningful contact, thus human knowledge is impossible on that basis. He spends quite a lot of ink tracing this idea from Plato through many Western philosophers. He gives a very sharp critique of Plato and the Ideas in Survey of Christian Epistemology - remember, he did have a Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and a Th.M. from Princeton Seminary - just dismissing the premise is what I meant by a massive overreach.

You couched your first argument in possible world vocabulary, after mentioning you were dismissing the TAG argument involving necessity(which is often a modal term), so I assumed you were arguing from modal logic. If not then fine, it becomes a normal issue involving conventional logic and concepts of plausibility and probability.

Tentatively, 'a discrete entity experiencing its existence'.

Im not sure, but lets say you are correct and see where you go with it.

Ok. Can you give me a bit more about "discrete" and "entity"?

'Discrete' just means separate from surroundings. My laptop is not a part of my 'self' etc.

'Entity'... well, I have to use some noun, don't I?

A laptop is a discrete entity, is it also a self?

entity is simply a container-term, meaning "(existing) thing". originally from "esse", latin "to be". (existing here doesn't include a reference to "existence as a physical being" or some such; numbers, concepts, the content of thoughts are entities as well)

A laptop is an entity but doesn't experience its own existence, hence not a self.

So if something is experiencing its own existence, then its a self? How does that work?
An ant is a discrete entity, that is experiencing its own existence, is it a self?
A computer is a discrete entity , that possibly is experiencing its own existence, is it a self?

"experiencing ones own existence" is indeed the more crucial term there. Generally, people do not believe that computers experience their own existence (if they do - then pencil sharpeners should too). With bacteriae, ants, lower mamals etc. we're on a continuum; generally, we have no reason to assume that ants experience their self.

There are experiments that suggest that some animals do (and most don't) such as pidgeons attempting to remove a spot of paint on their forehead that they can only see in a mirror. Here, they need to be able to realize that the pidgeon in the mirror is actually themselves, not some other pidgeon. Most other birds just assume there's another bird there and don't realize it's "them" themselves.

Based on this and similar experiments, we have reason to believe that ants do make the cut.

Maybe that would be a good common ground start point: there are unique perspectives reality is experienced from. And since they are unique, they are individual. Hence, there are individual perspectives reality is experienced from. Which would bring us to: there is an individual perspective without the implication there is an individual’s perspective.

This just seems like some arbitrary line. "You have a self, but you dont"

Something having the thought "I am alive" or " I experienced that sound" is in no way a self.

Oh right Ted.

So what would a self be, then?

Are you a discrete entity? I take discrete to mean something separate and distinct and entity as something with independent being. So a separate independent being - is that fair enough?

If so, we would be able to find such an entity, right?

What is this "water" everyone talks about? All I can find is hydrogen atoms and oxygen atoms. Clearly this "water" doesn't exist.

I've already tried that one.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=175

I think he statement regarding photons was more revealing:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=179

Don't really like certain connotations of 'independent'. 'Separate being' seems fine.

I imagine so, in principle, sure.

This, really. I've been thinking of it as:

Your house doesn't exist.

It... really seems to.

Show me this 'house'.

It's right there.

That's just a conjunction of walls.

There's even rooms inside, look.

Yeah, that's a room. I want to see the house, please.

Hume didn't think so:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/h/hume...2t/B1.4.6.html

A Treatise of Human Nature, by David Hume
Sect. vi. Of Personal Identity
[snip]
Unluckily all these positive assertions are contrary to that very experience, which is pleaded for them, nor have we any idea of self, after the manner it is here explained. For from what impression coued this idea be derived? This question it is impossible to answer without a manifest contradiction and absurdity; and yet it is a question, which must necessarily be answered, if we would have the idea of self pass for clear and intelligible, It must be some one impression, that gives rise to every real idea. But self or person is not any one impression, but that to which our several impressions and ideas are supposed to have a reference. If any impression gives rise to the idea of self, that impression must continue invariably the same, through the whole course of our lives; since self is supposed to exist after that manner. But there is no impression constant and invariable. Pain and pleasure, grief and joy, passions and sensations succeed each other, and never all exist at the same time. It cannot, therefore, be from any of these impressions, or from any other, that the idea of self is derived; and consequently there is no such idea.
[snip]
For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and coued I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity. If any one, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I can reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me.

So while he doesn’t outright deny the existence of the self, I think it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t think the belief in the self is rationally justifiable.

It's not my first time either:

I think you are being a bit disingenuous here

You claim that a self is something that is aware of its own existence.

Is your leg aware of its own existence?

No. But Im sure you would claim that the leg is part of your self. So what is it that is aware of its own legs existence, and its own existence?

Do you think that the phenomenon of "critical mass" for atomic explosions is a real phenomenon? That is, you can't have an atomic explosion until you have "enough" atoms, at which point you have a phenomenon that is different from the phenomenon you observe when you have fewer atoms?

So saying, “my thoughts, memories and sensations,” isn’t indexing a ‘me’, just those thoughts, memories and sensations?

I don't follow.

Zumby, why not define your sweat and faeces as a self?

Not a house, just a conjunction of walls.