The boundaries of self

[Rende]

As I think of one's self, I imagine that there should be boundaries which would determine what is one's self. But these boundaries are not so clear to me. Is self maybe an absolute. For example, self is the world, or self and the world are the same. Or is something that can't have a unique answer and is different from person to person.

When i think at self it can be my counciousnes, my experience or maybe a charachter that others see. Why we feel the need to distinguish ourselves. Its maybe a survivle tool. Even the borders of which my body with the world should have are not so clear.

Or perhaps self is just a feeling with no boundaries, and that's the end of it.

I started questioning this indipendently then after searching I found that this is actualy a widly freshly opened question in philosophy and other knowledges. Just typed in google the title of this topic and found a site where my questions are more profoundly debated. The article separates the question to three parts: mind-world, mind-body and self-mind.

Then, after reading it, I came up to more questions. Does body have boundaries without mind or brain? Or is it all just a world?

Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes?

Is it possible that the answer is not possible within original perspectives?

[Tom Butler]

Is it possible that the answer is not possible within original perspectives?

I have just read the essay submission selected by BICS as one of the second-tier winners
titled A Rational, Empirical case for postmortem survival based solely on mainstream science. https://bigelowinstitute.org/Winning_Es ... astrup.pdf by Bernardo Kastrup

His theme is that we, as consciousness, "express" our human form. When we die, we simply turn away from our imagined physical form. This, in answer to the question concerning the best evidence of survival.

I think Kastrup's cosmology is rather 2-D in a multi-D etheric, but the essay does bring up some important points. The problem we have is that virtually all of our environmental cues tell us we are our body. Right or wrong, Kastrup's essay might help you change your self-visualization.

For me, to visualize self, it is necessary to account for the difference between the influence of our human and our ... for lack of a better word ... our spiritual self. Following a two-mind model of who we are, our human aspect is informed by instincts while our spiritual aspect is informed, I think, by a kind of instincts based on our spiritual understating. Human instincts (ultimately) lead us toward self-serving choices that will help assure dominance of our gene pool. Presumably, our spiritual instincts lead us toward choices that will further our our kind.

When we consider the boundaries of self, it is important to first decide if we are of one mind or two.

[JackDaydream]

@Rende

The self is a fuzzy concept and there are many different approaches and some approaches, such as that of Buddhism challenge the idea of it as entity. That is because it is a perspective or construct of subjective consciousness. In some ways, it replaced the earlier idea of the soul which had more of an emphasis on the non physical aspect of consciousness.

In many ways it could be described as a way of conceptualizing narrative identity, especially in the understanding of how there is an underlying sense of historical memory of being. It involves an interface between body and mind as well as one's own subjective being in relationships with other beings. It can be the centre of forming an understanding of one's own nature as a sentient being and may incorporate the conscious and subconscious aspects of ego consciousness. It may even be possible to lose a sense of self, such as in states of depersonalisation. It may be important to hold onto a sense of self as a basis of integrity and autonomy in finding identity and meaning.

[Pattern-chaser]

As I think of one's self, I imagine that there should be boundaries which would determine what is one's self. But these boundaries are not so clear to me. Is self maybe an absolute. For example, self is the world, or self and the world are the same. Or is something that can't have a unique answer and is different from person to person.

When i think at self it can be my counciousnes, my experience or maybe a charachter that others see. Why we feel the need to distinguish ourselves. Its maybe a survivle tool. Even the borders of which my body with the world should have are not so clear.

Or perhaps self is just a feeling with no boundaries, and that's the end of it.

I started questioning this indipendently then after searching I found that this is actualy a widly freshly opened question in philosophy and other knowledges. Just typed in google the title of this topic and found a site where my questions are more profoundly debated. The article separates the question to three parts: mind-world, mind-body and self-mind.

Then, after reading it, I came up to more questions. Does body have boundaries without mind or brain? Or is it all just a world?

Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes?

Is it possible that the answer is not possible within original perspectives?

I think boundaries are created by humans. All except the boundaries of the universe itself, which are its end. For example, where are the boundaries between you and the rest of the world? I don't ask where you think those boundaries might be, I'm asking you to describe what these boundaries are, and the means by which you recognise them. What reason is there to say "this is part of me; that is part of something that is not me"? I have found this an interesting conundrum...

[JackManson]

Hello,

I have just tried to comment on points you have made in the same order you have. It is a difficult topic to understand and one of many I dont understand. I do not have much knowledge in this area but these are my thoughts.


The Self is not the world and are not the same. Self is what experiences the world. Which raises a question, is the self the body or are they the same? I think it is not the same because the self can also experience thoughts. For example when you listen to your thoughts the self is the one listening or when you visualise a scenario, the self is what sees. The body sort of translates the world to the self.

Many people actively look to not distinguish themselves. I believe the need to distinguish or not distinguish comes from outside influences, not from the self. I ask do animals other than humans have a self? I have no idea. The self cannot be what others see as there are many assumptions made by others about an individual.

Also, the self is not a feeling, the self experiences the feeling. Many get the feeling to find themselves or to express them self.

The body has boundaries with or without the brain as it is merely physical. The self is not physical, it is not something that can be experienced. I ask, are thoughts physical? Thoughts can be experienced, does that make them physical though? (While reading back over I wonder, is maths physical?)

"Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes". I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking if the wiser a person becomes the more they understand the self / consciousness? If that is your question then the short answer is yes.

The self is outside of the physical world. A boundary of the self is the physical world as it cannot cross into the world.
At this point I am starting to think that the self is the same for everyone. Countering the belief i had before I started typing.

Apologies, if I have made big leaps that are difficult to understand. I am willing to discuss further

[Rende]

As I think of one's self, I imagine that there should be boundaries which would determine what is one's self. But these boundaries are not so clear to me. Is self maybe an absolute. For example, self is the world, or self and the world are the same. Or is something that can't have a unique answer and is different from person to person.

When i think at self it can be my counciousnes, my experience or maybe a charachter that others see. Why we feel the need to distinguish ourselves. Its maybe a survivle tool. Even the borders of which my body with the world should have are not so clear.

Or perhaps self is just a feeling with no boundaries, and that's the end of it.

I started questioning this indipendently then after searching I found that this is actualy a widly freshly opened question in philosophy and other knowledges. Just typed in google the title of this topic and found a site where my questions are more profoundly debated. The article separates the question to three parts: mind-world, mind-body and self-mind.

Then, after reading it, I came up to more questions. Does body have boundaries without mind or brain? Or is it all just a world?

Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes?

Is it possible that the answer is not possible within original perspectives?

I think boundaries are created by humans. All except the boundaries of the universe itself, which are its end. For example, where are the boundaries between you and the rest of the world? I don't ask where you think those boundaries might be, I'm asking you to describe what these boundaries are, and the means by which you recognise them. What reason is there to say "this is part of me; that is part of something that is not me"? I have found this an interesting conundrum...

I think it the same in some way. There must exist a world to us. To be part of it. But then i think we dont understend much of this world. Also understending and evrething we experience shuld be part of it. So maybe are we machines not enough developed to deciphrate what is indeciphrable? Like a more profound connection with experiencing and the world.

[Rende]

Hello,

I have just tried to comment on points you have made in the same order you have. It is a difficult topic to understand and one of many I dont understand. I do not have much knowledge in this area but these are my thoughts.


The Self is not the world and are not the same. Self is what experiences the world. Which raises a question, is the self the body or are they the same? I think it is not the same because the self can also experience thoughts. For example when you listen to your thoughts the self is the one listening or when you visualise a scenario, the self is what sees. The body sort of translates the world to the self.

Many people actively look to not distinguish themselves. I believe the need to distinguish or not distinguish comes from outside influences, not from the self. I ask do animals other than humans have a self? I have no idea. The self cannot be what others see as there are many assumptions made by others about an individual.

Also, the self is not a feeling, the self experiences the feeling. Many get the feeling to find themselves or to express them self.

The body has boundaries with or without the brain as it is merely physical. The self is not physical, it is not something that can be experienced. I ask, are thoughts physical? Thoughts can be experienced, does that make them physical though? (While reading back over I wonder, is maths physical?)

"Is the more evolved notice of changes that makes one's self or in the same words conciousnes". I'm not entirely sure what you are asking here. Are you asking if the wiser a person becomes the more they understand the self / consciousness? If that is your question then the short answer is yes.

The self is outside of the physical world. A boundary of the self is the physical world as it cannot cross into the world.
At this point I am starting to think that the self is the same for everyone. Countering the belief i had before I started typing.

Apologies, if I have made big leaps that are difficult to understand. I am willing to discuss further

Yes, it's true. But maybe it's something different from people to people. I see it like this. If there is a world, self should be part of it ( the meaning Self is describing something). Our experience is real, so it should be also part of the world. I think of experience as a realm inside our brain or bodies which is also part of this world. So we are also part of this world. Self is within our realm, which is inside our brains or bodie. But then it comes to my mind that the world is everything and that inside the world is nothing describable, nothing exists. Think of it as a dead thing. Things exist only in our realm. But yet, the realm is part of the world.... It's also confusing to me. Maybe God is something to explain this wonder of the world. 

So maybe to put a border is relative to how much the horizon we relate to is wide.

Your second thought is also true. If we have two people, one looks, tuch, talks,... through his experiencing the other one, the other does the same through his experiencing back. So if we look at it from our experiencing its logical that self cannot be something inside others experiences. It should be part of your own experience. From the outside perspective of a third person, everybody has their own experiencing. But all the people are connected, being all part of the world. As I imagine it, the world is a box that encompasses everything. 

In the same way as before, if we look at it through our own perspective. I think there are other microorganisms inside me and cells are part of me, or pee is inside me too. And yet, when I think about the body, it is my body that I see, touch, and feel. So the body is something within our experience as well as within the world, heh. Or in other words, the body is inside experience, which is inside the body, which is only physics. The physics of our experience may be yet to be discovered.

It's true, we are probably more wise the older we are. But I wanted to relate it to something else. My thoughts were that humans are more developed than animals to deal with the constant changes that happen inside the world. So maybe it is self a "manmade tool" that should be taken just from the perspective of our experience. Or maybe the world is just physical.

 

[Rende]

@Rende

The self is a fuzzy concept and there are many different approaches and some approaches, such as that of Buddhism challenge the idea of it as entity. That is because it is a perspective or construct of subjective consciousness. In some ways, it replaced the earlier idea of the soul which had more of an emphasis on the non physical aspect of consciousness.

In many ways it could be described as a way of conceptualizing narrative identity, especially in the understanding of how there is an underlying sense of historical memory of being. It involves an interface between body and mind as well as one's own subjective being in relationships with other beings. It can be the centre of forming an understanding of one's own nature as a sentient being and may incorporate the conscious and subconscious aspects of ego consciousness. It may even be possible to lose a sense of self, such as in states of depersonalisation. It may be important to hold onto a sense of self as a basis of integrity and autonomy in finding identity and meaning.

I take in consideration a lot of what you said. Yes, I found that's also my meaning of life, being myself. I imagine this entity as a perspective or construct of experiencing that is inside my experiencing. Or the same thing by feeling that the entity and my experiencing are the same thing. Are we like some type of machines? I think yes. Everything that I am is my world, and I like to think of it as a real thing inside a real world. There is a lot of feeling to it, and maybe it is different from person to person.

[JackDaydream]

@Rende

I definitely don't think that we are machines because we are sentient beings. If I am a machine I am probably a rather dysfunctional one and I sometimes wish that I could be more like one because human beings are being expected to perform like machines, especially at work. The self is sensitive and some people are more sensitive than others and it may be that we are in between animal and machine. Once it was believed that we were between angels and animals, as fallen beings.

Your remark that 'we are more developed than animals' leads me to wonder to what extent animals have a sense of self. I wonder how they perceive their separation from other animals and the difference between their nature and human beings. A main difference may be the absence of language and it is hard to know how much they understand because cats seem to know their names. My mother's cat used to seem to like women more than men, which made me wonder if cats understand the idea of gender. They recognise the opposite sex in their own species but I wonder how they understand human gender, especially when human beings are clothed. They may recognise aspects like voice differences. But how they understand relationships, emotions and concepts in the formation of identity is unknown and, I may be accused of pointless speculation.

[JackManson]

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

[JackManson]

Your remark that 'we are more developed than animals' leads me to wonder to what extent animals have a sense of self. I wonder how they perceive their separation from other animals and the difference between their nature and human beings. A main difference may be the absence of language and it is hard to know how much they understand because cats seem to know their names. My mother's cat used to seem to like women more than men, which made me wonder if cats understand the idea of gender. They recognise the opposite sex in their own species but I wonder how they understand human gender, especially when human beings are clothed. They may recognise aspects like voice differences. But how they understand relationships, emotions and concepts in the formation of identity is unknown and, I may be accused of pointless speculation.

I too also wonder if animals even have a self or how in tuned they are. They are possibly more in tune with self, where humans are more in tune with mind.

How cats recognise gender part. I cant be certain how cats recognise human gender but would suspect it would be through hormones released by the humans. Many mamals recognise the other gender through hormones released.

[Tom Butler]

Take a look at the N’Kisi the bird video in the Avatar Essay at https://ethericstudies.org/avatar/ The bird is convincingly psychic and appears sentient in the same sense that we are sentient.

[Pattern-chaser]

Your remark that 'we are more developed than animals' leads me to wonder to what extent animals have a sense of self. I wonder how they perceive their separation from other animals and the difference between their nature and human beings.

One thing that has always bothered me is how humans can apparently have (self-) awareness, thought and knowledge - and even a little understanding - and yet not accept that they are animals? It's as if humans think that admitting their animality (?) would somehow devalue them? Curious.

[Rende]

I maybe found an answer to myself.
If life gave us the ability to experience i see myself like a whole experience of being alive.
I think that there is somthing intresting to it. That you can't deny your experiencing it will be always there.

So i think actually you can not lose yourself in a literally way of meaning. There are just things of human life that worsen the one's experience and make it horrible. The opposite also applies.

Self is usally a construct in our head but then i think this is blindnes. It's just a representation of how we connect our experience by rules of life. I think that a more correct aproach to the self it would be directly's own experience as a fact of life.

But still when i think at what i wrote, thoughts comes to me that to be in balance we need a construct of ourselfs. The above its only my construct ?

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

I think it also like this in some way. Self is somthing that we can't experience because is already our experience what self is.

@Rende

I definitely don't think that we are machines because we are sentient beings. If I am a machine I am probably a rather dysfunctional one and I sometimes wish that I could be more like one because human beings are being expected to perform like machines, especially at work. The self is sensitive and some people are more sensitive than others and it may be that we are in between animal and machine. Once it was believed that we were between angels and animals, as fallen beings.

I didn't mean like machines literally, but like a form of life which is a part of this world. To me all animals are life and we're included. With that in mind I was asking myself if life (and subsequently we), is it maybe in a poor representation a independent machine governed by rules with no such thing as life included, just material things. I also think now that my wondering was not reasonable and unknowable but still I like to wonder about this world. Also is not intresting that we must eat and sleep and so on. We take this for self-evident but in reallity I see that there are rules out there which is a proof that we're part of something bigger.

[stevie]

As I think of one's self, I imagine that there should be boundaries which would determine what is one's self. But these boundaries are not so clear to me. Is self maybe an absolute. For example, self is the world, or self and the world are the same. Or is something that can't have a unique answer and is different from person to person.

When i think at self it can be my counciousnes, my experience or maybe a charachter that others see. Why we feel the need to distinguish ourselves. Its maybe a survivle tool. Even the borders of which my body with the world should have are not so clear.

Or perhaps self is just a feeling with no boundaries, and that's the end of it.
...

As to self I find the different experiential aspects of self as used in some discipline of psychotherapy very helpful:
1. self as content or stories ("I am this or that", "In the past I experienced that and in the future ... blablabla")
2. self as processes (ever changing feelings, thoughts, etc)
3. self as context or perspective: the instance that does not change and can observe 1 and 2 as if not involved.