The boundaries of self

[Rende]

And I also think self as something that is worth or try to be experienced at one's best and balanced to make life meaningful.

[Rende]

Hello, I'm not a rock. I can't be still, even if I want to. It's been a long time since I posted, so I'm still alive, which is good for me. Reading all of this makes me proud of how much can be accomplished with a strong philosophical quest. Now, let me summarize everything from my perspective. There is a logic driving the conversation above and mysteries that logic can't explain. So when we think of the self as a form of listener and also as the self being the same as experiencing, we use our brain and also our self, or experience, so we can experience our brain. That's how I analyze the thoughts of Jack Manson.

 
I'm not sure if we agree on what the self is. 
My understanding of the self is when you close your eyes and listen to your thoughts. The self is the one listening and the mind is one thinking. 

You say self is within our realm or body,  but from my understanding of self, it isn't something you can point to, listen to, feel....... theres no way to experience the self.

If we can understand what we both mean by the self then we can have a better conversation

The last reply from stevie made me think it's true that the training concept of making in our minds the self an entity, which we believe is what we are, helps therapeutically and improves awareness. So from that point of view, experience and the self are not the same.

So we made some progress in this discussion. and it occurs to me whether it is yet possible to address the term "self" for what reality phenomena should precisely describe. or, in short, the exact definition of "self"?

Another question, as a side note, still bothers me. It is right to distinguish physical reality from something that is not physical or at least has no proven mass, like thoughts.

[Rende]

I believe that "everything" humans commence or start, well this "everything" shoud have a source. The obvious conclusion, I believe, is that we work with brain processes. And beside surrounding sources, there is the primary source, which is "to be"
In a personal way, our knowledge has nothing to do with knowing more knowledge but only more about ourselves. So personal energy is more important than communication in the first place. Then communication should come after internal energy, and good internal energy should lead to good communication. There is no knowledge like the floating knowledge around us, and knowledge is not something to be addressed absolutely. No, there is only "to be this knowledge" and communication is a tool of our brains that makes us think that something out of us is possible. No, because the creator is creating the creator. That's the "point of mind", It's creating what creation is.

[Rende]

All we are is energy so "We are" also comes from this energy and is like numbers are infinite till 0.

[The Beast]

Hi. In defining the self, I do employ miratives. However, it is also a discourse with different modalities. As such, one modality of Bayesian narratives employs multiple causal links. Basically, “it is a random multicausal experience by the imposition of strong structures”. At the core, it is an energy system. Presently, I favored a random matrix model that relates to quantum and stochastic processes. Yet, the experiencer is an state of flux with death and rebirth. Although, a Hamiltonian (time independent) formula applies to energies, there is an interactive heuristic of reasoning and inventive imagination correlating the self to volition. What is memory? It is the asymptotic behavior. Getting out of the Unicorn fencing might be impossible.

[Rende]

Getting out of the Unicorn fencing might be impossible.

True I feel like this comes to every conclusion when trying to define the world from an inside perspective. The connection between life "as (life is the fruit of the world. We live this life, which is the fruit of the world)" and human experience can't be described with human experience. It's also funny to me how I like to think that I know what the world is, but I have no idea how to demonstrate it. As all variants can apply to the point where it's all denied by impossibility, I'm happy with the conclusion that it is the most simple. The world is truly what humans scientifically are: organisms. So I experience my material organism and the function of my brain, and I am, in fact, "written with human feelings." "Dead as a rock, cold as the universe, meaningless, and thus neither driven by destiny nor living randomly by possibilities and free will." Simple as that "I am nothing, which is the same as everything".

[Rende]

Do you ever quested? "What i was before my birth." For me all imagination theories of essence withouth a body are just a mechanism of avoiding meaningless.

"The Beast" probably the flux you mentioned is a costant nothing or the same a constant everything. This is my interpretation of what you wrote.

[The Beast]

Quote: “Functionalism is probably the most widely held TOM among philosophers, cognitive psychologists and AI researchers” Hence not altogether antagonistic, it is an argument vs all dualistic theories. Obviously. I have inventive imagination. Maybe there is a working Tesla coil in some underground lab giving trips to the past or the future. If I were a dualist both of me will travel on to infinity and beyond. Easier to send a machine. Minsky: “Consciousness is overrated” which of course does not correlate with Zen Buddhism or other mysticisms. Parmenides speech seems relevant: “Welcome travelers and your mares seeking enlightenment”…( I think he said time travelers). Compare to the dream of Socrates. The lady in white ( IMO Themis) to tell him his future.

[Rende]

Next to the imagination of what is mind it's all to wonder what is this world we are living.

The self perception of mind, eyesight, sound.

The states of mind maybe are not what we think of or what we perceive as feelings. Only our imagination tells us that. To understand more deeply what we are, it's maybe necessary to change consciousness into mind wandering. Losing one's identity, but this leads to finding more active perceiveing of life. Thats kind of my experience.

[Rende]

Noticing the change of time, it's like noticing the change of state of mind. It's confusing to me the usage of "a ton of words" in philosophy for the similar events happening in our lives. All we are is life, and using evidence is probably the most effective way to deal with what is life. Noticing the change converts to the fact that evidence is everywhere inside and outside. Time is inside us. What is "self" to me? Is everything I experience. So it's a word that, like many others, may not be necessary. It's just a word like many others, a product of noticing the change.

[leilaboss]

Setting boundaries is a sign of self-respect and self-love.

[Carter Blunt]

Theory... there are no boundaries because everything is connected by space. I've recently been thinking a lot about infinite space, and how I always considered space as "nothing", imagining infinite blackness engulfing everything to the point where the entire universe may as well not exist in such a sea of nothing. But it's a lot more logical to consider NO space being nothing, than infinite space. If you have empty space on your computer, that's just reserved space on your harddrive, it's not infinite. Whatever "space" is could even be outside our 3d perspective.

If I were to put a boundary on "self" it would have to be bodily. But all the cells in your body are being shed and replaced at different rates. Your "self" is just the particles that are moving around within a certain area. You're essentially a clone of other clones, complete with implanted memories. In that sense, there are an astronomical amount of "selves".

[Carter Blunt]

Hi. In defining the self, I do employ miratives. However, it is also a discourse with different modalities. As such, one modality of Bayesian narratives employs multiple causal links. Basically, “it is a random multicausal experience by the imposition of strong structures”. At the core, it is an energy system. Presently, I favored a random matrix model that relates to quantum and stochastic processes. Yet, the experiencer is an state of flux with death and rebirth. Although, a Hamiltonian (time independent) formula applies to energies, there is an interactive heuristic of reasoning and inventive imagination correlating the self to volition. What is memory? It is the asymptotic behavior. Getting out of the Unicorn fencing might be impossible.

I'm American, pretty sure I speak English, but I couldn't translate that even with a dictionary in front of me. tl;dr, it's an energy system.

[Pattern-chaser]

I'm American, pretty sure I speak English...

I was born in England, where I have lived all my life. I speak English. You live in America, and you speak American. Your language originated from mine, just as mine originated from Welsh, Norse, German, Latin, etc. Your American language is the lingua franca of the world, and American people speak it and change it as they choose, as it should be. But English is my language.

[The Beast]

Hi. In defining the self, I do employ miratives. However, it is also a discourse with different modalities. As such, one modality of Bayesian narratives employs multiple causal links. Basically, “it is a random multicausal experience by the imposition of strong structures”. At the core, it is an energy system. Presently, I favored a random matrix model that relates to quantum and stochastic processes. Yet, the experiencer is an state of flux with death and rebirth. Although, a Hamiltonian (time independent) formula applies to energies, there is an interactive heuristic of reasoning and inventive imagination correlating the self to volition. What is memory? It is the asymptotic behavior. Getting out of the Unicorn fencing might be impossible.

I'm American, pretty sure I speak English, but I couldn't translate that even with a dictionary in front of me. tl;dr, it's an energy system.

A bit exuberant? Idealistic? The meaning of my pondering might be different with a prosodic approach that (to some) is fundamental in the American culture. (If this is your point) and if not, I am a dualist. I am exploring, mind you, reality. I can spin a constant K. This way: K_observing and K_(not observing) may be conditioning the result of an infinity loop touching or not the plane of existence. The plane of existence as the energy system partly defining reality R… and why not a construct (0,0) or (0,0,0)