Eastern philosophy says there is no “self.” Science agrees

“Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one.”

more…

Eastern philosophy says there is no “self.” Science Woo agrees

fixed :)

I’ll do a more detailed response tomorrow.

Bubblecar said:

Eastern philosophy says there is no “self.” Science Woo agrees

fixed :)

I’ll do a more detailed response tomorrow.

I don’t even know what it means to say the self is an “illusion”.

I’ll go with those masters of woo, The Incredible String Band who sang

Sometimes it seems
The only things real
Are what we are
And what we feel

Except I’d dispense with the “sometimes it seems” bit.

Or are they just saying that the “self” is not a single location within the brain, but is rather the combination of the separate parts of the brain and the rest of the body.

In which case, well duh.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Eastern philosophy says there is no “self.” Science Woo agrees

fixed :)

I’ll do a more detailed response tomorrow.

I don’t even know what it means to say the self is an “illusion”.

I’ll go with those masters of woo, The Incredible String Band who sang

Sometimes it seems
The only things real
Are what we are
And what we feel

Except I’d dispense with the “sometimes it seems” bit.

Or are they just saying that the “self” is not a single location within the brain, but is rather the combination of the separate parts of the brain and the rest of the body.

In which case, well duh.

It’s strawman rubbish, really. Set up a clearly inadequate concept of “self” and then say “that doesn’t exist!”

Humans have known for aeons that the closest we get to an integrated consciousness is multi-layered, very untidy, complex and often at odds with itself.

This “self” is nonetheless a real experience of the central nervous system, and all its connections with the rest of the body and all kinds of external environments, especially in the social sphere.

The challenge for science is to build realistic, empirically based models of such experience. But that’s not going to happen for those who start from the premise that “it’s not really there!”

Looks like Woo wins.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Looks like Woo wins.

?

Please check your scoring.

started reading that, reads like hoodoo, and not very good hoodoo

hence, selflessness.

Discrediting a sense of self is a good way to convince people(s) that you/they don’t matter and your purpose if to be a small cog in a machine that grinds you up and spits you out (for whatever reason the deem fit)

Buddhism is the dominant religion in Bhutan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Tibet, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Kalmykia and Vietnam. Large Buddhist populations live in North Korea, Nepal, India and South Korea.

——

Are people in these countries, in point of fact, happier?

dv said:

Buddhism is the dominant religion in Bhutan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Tibet, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Kalmykia and Vietnam. Large Buddhist populations live in North Korea, Nepal, India and South Korea.

——

Are people in these countries, in point of fact, happier?

and what’s more

““Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one.”

starts with an incorrect assumption then makes assertions that are just not true, and/or are meaningless.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Buddhism is the dominant religion in Bhutan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Tibet, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Kalmykia and Vietnam. Large Buddhist populations live in North Korea, Nepal, India and South Korea.

——

Are people in these countries, in point of fact, happier?

and what’s more

““Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one.”

starts with an incorrect assumption then makes assertions that are just not true, and/or are meaningless.

But it’s all downhill from there…

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

Buddhism is the dominant religion in Bhutan, Myanmar, Cambodia, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Japan, Tibet, Laos, Macau, Mongolia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Kalmykia and Vietnam. Large Buddhist populations live in North Korea, Nepal, India and South Korea.

——

Are people in these countries, in point of fact, happier?

and what’s more

““Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one.”

starts with an incorrect assumption then makes assertions that are just not true, and/or are meaningless.

But it’s all downhill from there…

:)

So, we’re all agreed then.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

and what’s more

““Why are you unhappy? Because 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one.”

starts with an incorrect assumption then makes assertions that are just not true, and/or are meaningless.

But it’s all downhill from there…

:)

So, we’re all agreed then.

But anyway, my daughter’s friend Alana has it all worked out:

The Chosen One

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

But it’s all downhill from there…

:)

So, we’re all agreed then.

But anyway, my daughter’s friend Alana has it all worked out:

The Chosen One

She’s married to a pink bear?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

:)

So, we’re all agreed then.

But anyway, my daughter’s friend Alana has it all worked out:

The Chosen One

She’s married to a pink bear?

Not sure, but I think she may have got the pink bear in just to play the part.

The Rev Dodgson said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

But it’s all downhill from there…

:)

So, we’re all agreed then.

But anyway, my daughter’s friend Alana has it all worked out:

The Chosen One

I see

> 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one

LOL. That ought to be a wall poster.

One anecdote that I heard in the 1970s.

A philosophy lecturer was showing that it couldn’t rigorously be proved that anyone other than the self existed.
After the class, a student came up to him and asked “how do I know that I exist?”
To which the lecturer replied “and who is talking?”

I like that, brief and to the point.

dear God that page has a hoodoo appeal to the naive, i’m torturing myself with reading it again

i’ll pick couple things to start with

take the I/me as the pilot of the aircraft analogy

I wonder east or west, of the overlay of ideas, concepts whatever, supposed differences of effect, are whatevers contribution to psychological life so different that its influence on various levels of homeostasis might be thought of as profoundly-not-similar, somehow I doubt it

or, are the philosophies more metaphyics really, an introduction (at their best), more analogous to some study of a fly-by-wire system of an aircraft

not my analogy, don’t mind me if I take it for a walk and see what its usefulness is, explore the limits of its usefulness, the sort of exploration good philosophy might incline

the third body of text or paragraph has, to my understanding, has numerous ‘problems’ i’d call them

‘self…in control of our physical body….’ by memory, paraphrasing

crosseyed derrrr

how does all that contributes to the quite unconscious aspects of homeostasis mechanisms fit with that, what you mostly don’t know

fact is, east or western philosophy, mostly the work of what goes into maintaining the integrity of the organism involves many aspects unknown to the self, makes no difference what philosophy, and a fortunate thing it is largely uninfluenced by what you think, or it probably wouldn’t be stable enough to work, it would be mediated and corrupted by higher functions

I give that page two out of ten

transition said:

dear God that page has a hoodoo appeal to the naive, i’m torturing myself with reading it again

i’ll pick couple things to start with

take the I/me as the pilot of the aircraft analogy

I wonder east or west, of the overlay of ideas, concepts whatever, supposed differences of effect, are whatevers contribution to psychological life so different that its influence on various levels of homeostasis might be thought of as profoundly-not-similar, somehow I doubt it

or, are the philosophies more metaphyics really, an introduction (at their best), more analogous to some study of a fly-by-wire system of an aircraft

not my analogy, don’t mind me if I take it for a walk and see what its usefulness is, explore the limits of its usefulness, the sort of exploration good philosophy might incline

the third body of text or paragraph has, to my understanding, has numerous ‘problems’ i’d call them

‘self…in control of our physical body….’ by memory, paraphrasing

crosseyed derrrr

how does all that contributes to the quite unconscious aspects of homeostasis mechanisms fit with that, what you mostly don’t know

fact is, east or western philosophy, mostly the work of what goes into maintaining the integrity of the organism involves many aspects unknown to the self, makes no difference what philosophy, and a fortunate thing it is largely uninfluenced by what you think, or it probably wouldn’t be stable enough to work, it would be mediated and corrupted by higher functions

I give that page two out of ten

homeostasis mechanisms, make that homeostatic mechanisms

Turn off your mind
Relax and float down stream
It is not dying

Lay down all thoughts
Surrender to the void
It is shining

Ian said:

Turn off your mind
Relax and float down stream
It is not dying

Lay down all thoughts
Surrender to the void
It is shining

John Lennon

mollwollfumble said:

> 99.9 percent of everything you think, and of everything you do, is for yourself — and there isn’t one

LOL. That ought to be a wall poster.

One anecdote that I heard in the 1970s.

A philosophy lecturer was showing that it couldn’t rigorously be proved that anyone other than the self existed.
After the class, a student came up to him and asked “how do I know that I exist?”
To which the lecturer replied “and who is talking?”

I like that, brief and to the point.

Scratches head.

But isn’t the proff saying that every individual has good evidence that they exist, even if no-one else does.

In which case what does the statement “there isn’t one” mean?

> fact is, east or western philosophy, mostly the work of what goes into maintaining the integrity of the organism involves many aspects unknown to the self, makes no difference what philosophy, and a fortunate thing it is largely uninfluenced by what you think, or it probably wouldn’t be stable enough to work, it would be mediated and corrupted by higher functions

Right on!

We disagree.

SCIENCE said:

We disagree.

Everyone here seems to have a self that they either want to defend or apologise for.