SELF

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: SELF

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote: March 16th, 2021, 8:54 pm
RJG wrote:The "self" is an "experiencer". And logically an "experiencer" cannot experience him-self (X<X). So in this sense, any experience of self (e.g. true "self-awareness") is just an illusion.
LuckyR wrote:Everyone also knows that of the 5 senses, vision and hearing are geared externally whereas taste, smell and touch are at least partially internally directed. If you include other senses such as proprioception, which are entirely internal, we experience ourselves all day every day.
I don't disagree that we can experience many bodily sensations. But the experiencer of these sensations cannot logically experience himself (the self/experiencer himself), on at least two different fronts.

1. The subject (or the experiencer; self) cannot logically be in two places at one time. X<X is logically impossible. Since experiencing is a one-way (incoming) event, a subject cannot be outside of himself to then experience himself. He cannot be both the subject and the object (the observer and the observed) simultaneously.

2. Also, when we experience, we can only experience 'experiences' (sensations, feelings, urges, etc) and not actual 'things' or 'selfs', themselves.

Therefore, true "self-awareness" is a myth; illusion. An experiencer (a "self") can experience many things, but never itself, ...much like a stone can tap many things, but never itself.
Several things. Firstly, there is no requirement for action and observation of said action to be simultaneous. I addressed this in the part of my post you chose to not respond to. Secondly, your use of the terms incoming and outide are meaningless on their face. While we all agree that we can observe others quite easily, it is a huge error to suppose that the accuracy of our observations of other people is anywhere near as accurate as our knowledge of our own mindset.

Please parse the differences between your two sets in your #2. They seem arbitrary as written.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: SELF

Post by RJG »

RJG wrote:1. The subject (or the experiencer; self) cannot logically be in two places at one time. X<X is logically impossible. Since experiencing is a one-way (incoming) event, a subject cannot be outside of himself to then experience himself. He cannot be both the subject and the object (the observer and the observed) simultaneously.
LuckyR wrote:Several things. Firstly, there is no requirement for action and observation of said action to be simultaneous.
I never said that an "action" and the "observation" need to be simultaneous. I said the observer cannot logically be both the "observer" and the "observed" simultaneously. X<X is logically impossible.

LuckyR wrote:I addressed this in the part of my post you chose to not respond to.
Your first part referred to videotape. Seeing a videotape of our (or anyone's) body moving about does not mean that we can see the "self" or the "experiencer" of our experiences.

LuckyR wrote:While we all agree that we can observe others quite easily, it is a huge error to suppose that the accuracy of our observations of other people is anywhere near as accurate as our knowledge of our own mindset.
Firstly, it is logically impossible for the observer to observe the observer (himself). Simple logic tells us that.

Secondly, whether we observe/sense/detect our physical body or our neighbor's physical body, we can only do so through our bodily sensors. The only difference is that we have more sensors detecting our bodies than we do of their bodies. But this doesn't mean that we are observing the observer (the self himself). We can't actually observe real 'objects'. We can only experience 'experiences' (bodily sensations). Period. That's it. Nothing more.

So, not only is "observing the observer" logically impossible, but when the observer does observe, he can only observe 'experiences', and not actual objects like "observers".

RJG wrote:2. Also, when we experience, we can only experience 'experiences' (sensations, feelings, urges, etc) and not actual 'things' or 'selfs', themselves.
LuckyR wrote:Please parse the differences between your two sets in your #2. They seem arbitrary as written.
What two sets? The point of #2 is that we can only experience bodily sensations, not actual things (or selfs) themselves.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: SELF

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote: March 17th, 2021, 7:20 am
RJG wrote:1. The subject (or the experiencer; self) cannot logically be in two places at one time. X<X is logically impossible. Since experiencing is a one-way (incoming) event, a subject cannot be outside of himself to then experience himself. He cannot be both the subject and the object (the observer and the observed) simultaneously.
LuckyR wrote:Several things. Firstly, there is no requirement for action and observation of said action to be simultaneous.
I never said that an "action" and the "observation" need to be simultaneous. I said the observer cannot logically be both the "observer" and the "observed" simultaneously. X<X is logically impossible.

LuckyR wrote:I addressed this in the part of my post you chose to not respond to.
Your first part referred to videotape. Seeing a videotape of our (or anyone's) body moving about does not mean that we can see the "self" or the "experiencer" of our experiences.

LuckyR wrote:While we all agree that we can observe others quite easily, it is a huge error to suppose that the accuracy of our observations of other people is anywhere near as accurate as our knowledge of our own mindset.
Firstly, it is logically impossible for the observer to observe the observer (himself). Simple logic tells us that.

Secondly, whether we observe/sense/detect our physical body or our neighbor's physical body, we can only do so through our bodily sensors. The only difference is that we have more sensors detecting our bodies than we do of their bodies. But this doesn't mean that we are observing the observer (the self himself). We can't actually observe real 'objects'. We can only experience 'experiences' (bodily sensations). Period. That's it. Nothing more.

So, not only is "observing the observer" logically impossible, but when the observer does observe, he can only observe 'experiences', and not actual objects like "observers".

RJG wrote:2. Also, when we experience, we can only experience 'experiences' (sensations, feelings, urges, etc) and not actual 'things' or 'selfs', themselves.
LuckyR wrote:Please parse the differences between your two sets in your #2. They seem arbitrary as written.
What two sets? The point of #2 is that we can only experience bodily sensations, not actual things (or selfs) themselves.
Ok, since you refuse to differentiate between the two, let me approach from a different angle. Is there a difference between what we can appreciate about others and ourselves? I ask since you are saying two things that I can see. The first is that one can't observe one's self based solely on the logic of the capabilities of rocks. The other is that any observations are limited by what our senses tell us and then playing a grammatical sleight of hand trying to make the case that such sensory input of people and ourselves don't qualify as "selves", whatever that might be.

If we cannot appreciate others or ourselves, then the second half of your commentary is a strawman. That is, what we actually experience every day is unchanged, there is just a novel definition of the word "self", that is essentially non-functional since as you're pointing out, it applies to no-one.

OTOH, if you say we can appreciate other people's "selves" but not our own (based on rock theory) then you need to show the difference between our powers of appreciation of others and ourselves without using rock theory (since it is far from universally accepted).
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: SELF

Post by GrayArea »

To give my own personal opinion on this, I think the definition of "self" can only be fully embraced and understood once we stop thinking about it.
User avatar
GrayArea
Posts: 374
Joined: March 16th, 2021, 12:17 am

Re: SELF

Post by GrayArea »

I do not get why people are trying to explain what creates their thoughts with their own thoughts that it creates. This kind of thought displayed here though, would be slightly different as this is just another form of hinting my(furthermore our) preexisting self-awareness which is the true definition of self and cannot be spoken or thought.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: SELF

Post by RJG »

LuckyR wrote:Is there a difference between what we can appreciate about others and ourselves?
Yes. We can sense more about ourselves than we can about others.

LuckyR wrote:I ask since you are saying two things that I can see. The first is that one can't observe one's self based solely on the logic of the capabilities of rocks.
Correct, we can experience many things but never the part of us that is doing the experiencing. Logically the observer can't observe the observer. X<X is logically impossible, (...we can't step outside ourself to see ourself).

LuckyR wrote:The other is that any observations are limited by what our senses tell us and then playing a grammatical sleight of hand trying to make the case that such sensory input of people and ourselves don't qualify as "selves", whatever that might be.
There is no "sleight of hand", just more simple logic. X=~X is logically impossible (...we only experience sensations, not actual things or selfs themselves).

"Experientially" generated knowledge is not certain objective knowledge and should never be trusted to yield true knowledge. In other words, we should never trust our subjective senses to tell us what is objectively true.

LuckyR wrote:If we cannot appreciate others or ourselves, then the second half of your commentary is a strawman.
Not so. There is no strawmaning. My point is that experiencing one self (true self-awareness) is impossible on at least two fronts; however the angle you wish to look at it.

LuckyR wrote:That is, what we actually experience every day is unchanged, there is just a novel definition of the word "self", that is essentially non-functional since as you're pointing out, it applies to no-one.
Not so. I am not denying that a self (aka the "experiencer" called "I") exists. I am only denying the possibility of experientially knowing it (via our senses). The self can never be aware of itself. Not only is X<X impossible, but so is X=~X impossible.

We only know that "I" exists because it is logically derived. Without the use of logic we would not know that we exist. Again, experientially sensing one-self is impossible (on at least two fronts).

LuckyR wrote:OTOH, if you say we can appreciate other people's "selves" but not our own (based on rock theory) then you need to show the difference between our powers of appreciation of others and ourselves without using rock theory (since it is far from universally accepted).
We can sense other people as well as we can sense ourselves. The only difference between sensing others and ourselves, is the number of sensors involved. But we can't get objective truth from subjective experiences alone. Having more and different subjective experiences only gives us more subjectivity, not objectivity.

We can't get objectivity (objective truths) from subjectivity.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: SELF

Post by Gertie »

RJG wrote: March 16th, 2021, 8:54 pm
RJG wrote:The "self" is an "experiencer". And logically an "experiencer" cannot experience him-self (X<X). So in this sense, any experience of self (e.g. true "self-awareness") is just an illusion.
LuckyR wrote:Everyone also knows that of the 5 senses, vision and hearing are geared externally whereas taste, smell and touch are at least partially internally directed. If you include other senses such as proprioception, which are entirely internal, we experience ourselves all day every day.
I don't disagree that we can experience many bodily sensations. But the experiencer of these sensations cannot logically experience himself (the self/experiencer himself), on at least two different fronts.

1. The subject (or the experiencer; self) cannot logically be in two places at one time. X<X is logically impossible. Since experiencing is a one-way (incoming) event, a subject cannot be outside of himself to then experience himself. He cannot be both the subject and the object (the observer and the observed) simultaneously.

2. Also, when we experience, we can only experience 'experiences' (sensations, feelings, urges, etc) and not actual 'things' or 'selfs', themselves.

Therefore, true "self-awareness" is a myth; illusion. An experiencer (a "self") can experience many things, but never itself, ...much like a stone can tap many things, but never itself.
What if what we call the self is simply the way experience manifests for complex critters like humans?

Conscious experience is inherently 'first person', that is its nature. But a simpler experiencing species like a mouse won't have the toolkit to think in terms 'Me' or self-reflect, a mouse presumably just feels hunger, sees cheese and reacts. With humans we have the toolkit to create ongoing thinky narratives in our heads, create a model of the world and ourselves as a subject acting with agency within that model. But all this too is just a type of experience, a more organised, model making type.

What we actually have is an experiential sense of being a unified discrete self, resulting from these organisational processes. Correlated with a physical body moving through space and time.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: SELF

Post by LuckyR »

RJG wrote: March 18th, 2021, 7:20 am
LuckyR wrote:Is there a difference between what we can appreciate about others and ourselves?
Yes. We can sense more about ourselves than we can about others.

LuckyR wrote:I ask since you are saying two things that I can see. The first is that one can't observe one's self based solely on the logic of the capabilities of rocks.
Correct, we can experience many things but never the part of us that is doing the experiencing. Logically the observer can't observe the observer. X<X is logically impossible, (...we can't step outside ourself to see ourself).

LuckyR wrote:The other is that any observations are limited by what our senses tell us and then playing a grammatical sleight of hand trying to make the case that such sensory input of people and ourselves don't qualify as "selves", whatever that might be.
There is no "sleight of hand", just more simple logic. X=~X is logically impossible (...we only experience sensations, not actual things or selfs themselves).

"Experientially" generated knowledge is not certain objective knowledge and should never be trusted to yield true knowledge. In other words, we should never trust our subjective senses to tell us what is objectively true.

LuckyR wrote:If we cannot appreciate others or ourselves, then the second half of your commentary is a strawman.
Not so. There is no strawmaning. My point is that experiencing one self (true self-awareness) is impossible on at least two fronts; however the angle you wish to look at it.

LuckyR wrote:That is, what we actually experience every day is unchanged, there is just a novel definition of the word "self", that is essentially non-functional since as you're pointing out, it applies to no-one.
Not so. I am not denying that a self (aka the "experiencer" called "I") exists. I am only denying the possibility of experientially knowing it (via our senses). The self can never be aware of itself. Not only is X<X impossible, but so is X=~X impossible.

We only know that "I" exists because it is logically derived. Without the use of logic we would not know that we exist. Again, experientially sensing one-self is impossible (on at least two fronts).

LuckyR wrote:OTOH, if you say we can appreciate other people's "selves" but not our own (based on rock theory) then you need to show the difference between our powers of appreciation of others and ourselves without using rock theory (since it is far from universally accepted).
We can sense other people as well as we can sense ourselves. The only difference between sensing others and ourselves, is the number of sensors involved. But we can't get objective truth from subjective experiences alone. Having more and different subjective experiences only gives us more subjectivity, not objectivity.

We can't get objectivity (objective truths) from subjectivity.
Thanks for the clarifications. If one were to take your postings at face value, since I am reading them, they are a product of my perception and are thus subjective to me and are not "objective truths" as you acknowledged. Everything you are proposing are the product of your take on what is logical to you (based on how your mind works). Good for you. But as everyone knows, folks have thought about essentially everything concerning the human condition long before there was a you (we all are familiar with philosophy, after all). And it may or may not surprise you that folks have not universally come to your conclusions, that their logic doesn't match up with your's. Which I guess is a pretty good functional definition of subjective.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: SELF

Post by RJG »

LuckR wrote:If one were to take your postings at face value, since I am reading them, they are a product of my perception and are thus subjective to me and are not "objective truths" as you acknowledged.
Correct. The words that you perceive (as being written by RJG) are subjective to you, and therefore may not be real after all (...e.g. you may be hallucinating all this). Though the content may contain objective truths that you may or may not recognize as objective truths.

LuckyR wrote:Everything you are proposing are the product of your take on what is logical to you (based on how your mind works). Good for you. But as everyone knows, folks have thought about essentially everything concerning the human condition long before there was a you (we all are familiar with philosophy, after all). And it may or may not surprise you that folks have not universally come to your conclusions, that their logic doesn't match up with your's. Which I guess is a pretty good functional definition of subjective.
Agreed and understood. No one needs to accept anything I write. We all see things differently.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: SELF

Post by RJG »

Gertie wrote:Conscious experience is inherently 'first person', that is its nature. But a simpler experiencing species like a mouse won't have the toolkit to think in terms 'Me' or self-reflect, a mouse presumably just feels hunger, sees cheese and reacts.
Agreed. Although mice have memory systems, and therefore they may consciously experience their experiences (hunger, etc), but I doubt that they can experience the knowing of their existence, for that takes, as you say, a special "toolkit", or as I say, "logic" (the means to rationalize) to know that one actually exists.

Gertie wrote:With humans we have the toolkit to create ongoing thinky narratives in our heads, create a model of the world and ourselves as a subject acting with agency within that model. But all this too is just a type of experience, a more organised, model making type.
Yes! (...except that there is no real "agency"). We are not much different than mice in the respect that we only really just experience stuff moment-by-moment-by-moment-by-moment until life is over. Everything we experience in life is still just another damn experience. But, as you say, we humans have the toolkit; the ability to rationalize (experience logic) and thereby know that we exist, and claim "I am". In other words, we don't know we exist until we logically derive it. And until then, we experience life like a mouse, or any other animal that lacks the 'toolkit'.
User avatar
Waechter418
Posts: 42
Joined: July 19th, 2015, 7:43 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Nietzsche
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: SELF

Post by Waechter418 »

Self is the vessel of All and thus hidden in it.
User avatar
ch85cl
New Trial Member
Posts: 1
Joined: March 24th, 2021, 5:13 am

Re: SELF

Post by ch85cl »

Interesting thread for me.
popeye1945
Posts: 1110
Joined: October 22nd, 2020, 2:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Alfred North Whitehead
Location: canada

Re: SELF

Post by popeye1945 »

Self is consciousness and everything consciousness experiences.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021