What is the self?

Attached: empiricist-epistemology-hume-kant-8-728.jpg (728x546, 104K)

shelf with no h

>given the illusion
who's getting fooled?

something disqualified by eliminative materialism, and therefore doesn't exist outside spook-circles.

a series of conscious moments

who witnesses them?

this same bundle of properties, which I call 'me'

Every piece of matter that comes into contact with it

Read Nyanananda's Nibbana Sermons.

the conscious moment is the 'witnesser' is what I meant. that's what 'you' are, not the meme you have of your identity.

so really you are inumerable 'you's that exist for a moment

A relation which relates itself to its own self.

Nobody.

>witnesser'
i cant believe how dumb I am. the 'witness'

Could you expand on this? Is that relation a being or a becoming?

how is an illusion an illusion if nobody is getting fooled?

It isn't. It's not a reality either.

The only theories of self I've heard of are Hume's bundle theory and the spiritual self. Are there any more is that it?

there is the Buddhist view of Anatta

maybe you should try actually reading up on this stuff instead of trying to "BTFO" anons for your ego

The part that there is something to fool is also part of the illusion you dipshit

you can't speak of an illusion in the first place if nothing is getting fooled

>In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul or essence in living beings.

How is that different to Humes view?

Honestly im starting to believe this more and more. I feel that there are some concepts to complex to verbally express

Stupid fucking anglo. Why are you so afraid of contradiction. "law of excluded middle beep boop robot voice"

God I wish that were me.

ngmi

>she

if you want to do mysticism go ahead, but don't try to coopt the prestige of science while you do that

the locus of awareness is single and so it can't be a bundle or pieces
if that were so there would be a discontinuity which is not experienced

you can experience the flickering if you do meditation and get enough mental power

Then it's not even a concept. It seems like a vague feeling, at best.

Science is great for some things but this gay ass "well what you said is in error and wrong" attitude is niggardly. Read Feyerabend

the same science which is only now realizing the truths which mysticism already did thousands of years earlier?

>if that were so there would be a discontinuity which is not experienced
there is in fact a discontinuity, if you actually concentrate on any given moment, it has a beginning, which has within it a 'model' of the moment that preceded it(and other short term memory stuff). Each moment starts with the illusion 'i am connected to a previous moment'

What the fuck are you saying

The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self, or it is that in the relation that the relation relates itself to its own self; the self is not the relation but that the relation relates itself to its own self.

>the locus of awareness is single and so it can't be a bundle or pieces

Memory is what gives us the illusion of cohesion or 'oneness'

if those are truths they should stand on their own terms, so don't try to hijack someone else's prestige to parrot them
but the argument is the same that was used to break the concept of the self in the first place, if the same "illusion" argument break the self, once the self is broken the "illusion" itself breaks too, which means that you can't use it anymore and you are left with nothing

craving, it's easy.

Attached: 1546509238136.jpg (1891x1061, 155K)

who is hijacking whose prestige? i'm just saying that science and mysticism are not at odds with eachother

>discontinuity which is not experienced
Surely discontinuity, if experienced, would prove the opposite. The fact that its not experienced would support the bundle theory

There is no self. There is only the will.

Attached: canteatime.jpg (646x456, 44K)

The self consists of preferences that are manifested by your childhood upbringing and genes.
Being awear of this you can be the self.

the will to what though?

Holy fucking shit why do you think that is has to make sense in a formal-logic framework. Stupid nigger

you are using logic to break the self in the first place which then demolishes itself, if you don't need logic why not believe in the self in the first place? if it doesn't have to make sense in a formal-logic framework, as the self clearly makes sense by other standards

Mo such things.
I'm not 2-dimensional enough to have a single self.
I change depending on what my senses tell me, when chemicals my gut flora release, the people i'm with or what i remember.
The self as i imagine you would call it, dies and is resurrected with each and every passage of time.

that the question "who produces it?" is all too human for the answer that you seek

Everything you had but couldn't keep

Those experiences are still experienced by something
There is still a continuity of the witness observing the act of concentration that you mention
The continuity remains even when one is not engaged in memory
Wrong, if there were unexplainable gaps or blanks spots that would support discontinuity but there is a continuum of awareness throughout that is never interrupted and is prior to all conceptualization and separation

>Muh gut flora
lol, let me guess you don't believe in free will either

>There is still a continuity of the witness observing the act of concentration that you mention
There isn't though m8, that's the illusory part. Consider that when you go to sleep you wake up and think it's still you, even though there is no continuity. Your new moment simply contains a model, a reference to the old moments. It's the same thing moment to moment in waking life.

>but there is a continuum of awareness throughout that is never interrupted
How do you know? The fact is seems flawless is a dead giveaway that the experience is illusory. If there was a continuum you would notice the inevitable changes, but you don't

The self is an incredibly rare object that comes about after thousands of years of stochastic processes. Most of us have probably never even experienced a self, only heard or read the rumours surrounding it.

All women posted on Yea Forums are trannies

>implying gut flora don't influence mood

Free is a thing, but independent will is not.

Imagine being so pro dead peoples ideas that you are staunchly anti-science. Pathetic.

>Consider that when you go to sleep you wake up and think it's still you, even though there is no continuity.
The continuity is still there, but in the absence of the activity of the mind such as in deep sleep it just remains peacefully without any object of thought, it's presence in that state can be demonstrated when if someone strikes you hard you will immediately awaken and be the same continuum, but now with a subject-object distinction also present. The continuum of awareness is prior to all references of the past and other conceptualizations.
It's self-evidence because there are no gaps or losses, changes are noticed but they are all in the objects of awareness which is separate from the awareness of them itself.

When you strip away everything you can I think "awareness" or "consciousness" is all that you can arrive at that isn't reducible. Not thought or emotion or sensation, but the empty awareness of all of the above.

An emergent property of the body and consciousness acting in unison. I don't think it could be described sufficiently with any more depth than that.

Which has the cool corollary that assuming everybody is conscious, everybody is identical at the most fundamental level.

How do you know there is a continuity at all? You seem to just be asserting it exists, especially in the case of the sleeping mind it seems highly speculative

You've typed words, but nigga you've not said shit.

Brainlet highbrow. You probably didn't even read the thread as you believe to be smarter than everyone else.

Infinite potential bound to a probably arbitrary set of conditions

>No such thing
>I
You say there is no self, but then you go on to explain that the self changes. Water that freezes into ice is the same stuff in a different form. You are describing one self taking on many different forms.

Can you describe that property?

>there are no gaps or losses,
You would expect there to be if the self existed in a metaphysical way was not a freshly created bundle. The absence of gaps proves bundle theory

Who the fuck said you can dissolve self with logic. Ego death I usually comes with psychedelics or meditation

Me

I'm describing the reverse actually. Many selfs' taking on one form. Hence why punishment for crimes still applies even after "i've" slept.
It takes more than a single molecule of H2O to form ice or water(L).

It can be deduced from the fact that while awake, the self-same awareness remaining homogeneous throughout all that it observes is not ever experienced as lost; and from that when it rests without subject-object duality in deep sleep one only needs to be struck to make it immediately known and self-apparent
>You would expect there to be if the self existed in a metaphysical way
This doesn't make any sense, can you explain your reasoning?

>not engaged in memory
Amnesiacs don't have continuity. Read the second chapter of pic related

Attached: 31w3W1Nv0TL._BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (222x335, 10K)

They don't have continuity of memory of past moments, but they never lose their awareness of the moment itself, the unchanging now which persists despite all external changes.

an intuition

an illusion designed to keep you going

An illusion

Your self: An assemblage composed of every moment in your life.

The self: the cumulative totality of sense perceptions from the universe's beginning to its hypothetical end, matter learning about itself through its own knowledge-based superstructure. The self is the study of a cosmological mistake, a fiction that makes itself real above the plateau of inert matter. Call it God, call it monism, call it gnonism if you wish– everyone shall come to know its name eventually.

Me

do you think she is secretly depressed and suicidal? she reminds me of the female characters from houllebecq's novels that get super depressed once they get old and realize their sexual market value has plummeted

No self and true self are the same shit reached slightly differently

nothing becoming nothing

the unique

*autistic Buddhist screeching*

What is a selfie?

The self as being is a story of the storyteller, a narrative entity including past, present, and future. The self is a society of narrative entities that have been experienced both "factual" and "fictional;" one is part of both an inner and outer society.
The self as becoming is a question questioning itself, where "question" here doesn't just mean the linguistic object but the entire sense of "request," including searching, questing in the narrative sense, and awareness itself as a request for sense-experience. This is the substanceless, absential non-self in Eastern philosophy.
Self-awareness emerges when awareness is directed upon that which is aware, it is impossible to break these two poles apart or place one as more primary than the other because they are inextricably interdependent, synthesized in the organic process of a life of which neither story nor awareness can fully account for.

TL;DR "What is the self?" is both literally that question and its answer.

The self is your mind, your thoughts. But more importantly and actually;
The universe, everything.

Attached: Doodlebob.png (500x375, 217K)

brainlet

Self does not exist.

dissolve as in prove that it's not a thing, if you disregard normal logic you can invent weird logics were a self make sense

to keep who going?

she looks hot though

youtube.com/watch?v=QZruEaOLTMk

A unique perspective.

To Life, but that is a major flaw, it is like saying an eye exist for the eye.

The Self is the centre of the individual. The individual thinks therefore he is. No amount of Subject and Object will create the self.

>This doesn't make any sense
What doesn't make sense? It seems obvious to me that the perception we have of a single unchanging self is false.

well aren't you a cheeky cunt

Then couldn't one just say that this "sameness" once broken down is just Schopenhauer will?

This. How many times do we have to have this thread. Kierkegaard explained this shit over a century ago perfectly.

LMAO Nigga Like How Can The Self Exist If Reality Doesn't Exist?

Attached: Screenshot_20181215-114722~2.png (720x231, 37K)

The Self, Myself.

Is a state of being in which has a definitive nature and current permanent state while also pertaining a certain limit and ability of change. The state of being itself is dependant upon the possibility of experience. With that I am Self.

The I that posits itself
The sublation of the universal and the particular, the ethical and the aesthetic
That which rests above the astral body
The link between being and nonbeing (altogether becoming), between body and spirit, between persistence and dissipation, between will and stillness
The One

B. E. your self, or B.E. Entirely your self,
and to hell with the world, as the Old Man of the Dovrë says

read Wittgenstein

a delusion

I'll just place that thought on the h-shelf

an absolute meme

Self Will

Attached: ws.jpg (460x276, 35K)

i don't know what he does for a living but he cucked Zizek in a debate, so that's based and redpilled on my book

The self is largely indescribable.

That's your projection there. I don't think I'm smarter than anyone in this thread. I do believe however that any attempt to sufficiently define the self would fall short, due to the amorphous, ever changing, and strictly momentary nature of the self.

Not really. I guess it's the outward looking part of consciousness that has come to perceive itself as distinct from its surroundings.

How could i know?

so what? just try to approach it and stop making excuses. you're free to leave what you said as a caveat.

You never explained your reasoning or logical justifications for that, which was what I asked about