Science of Self (Humans)

by romansh , Tuesday, March 11, 2014, 03:58 (3692 days ago) @ dhw

Why bring in a different term taken from such a specific field? The above commonly accepted definition of emergence can be applied to many different fields, philosophical as well as scientific. That is why it is so useful.
The definition you provided for emergence is the same as that for synergism I have no problem with that.-What's the problem with providing a synergic example?
 
> I agree that we have that ability, and if by creating a model you mean we have a concept of what it is that constitutes a particular "self", I would agree with that too.
We create all sorts of models: ourselves, others, communities, unicorns, trees, griffins, dragons, consciousness. Some our plainly just concepts, others we may think are a bit more substantial. -> I think you have been asking two questions: 1) whether the self exists (you have talked of "the absence of self and the consequences of such a worldview"), and 2) whether we have free will. Clearly the latter depends on the former, but the problematical nature of free will does not mean that the attributes which make "me" do not constitute what we call a "self". 
And yet I found by dismissing the latter the perception I have of the former becomes problematic. If I have no free will what exactly is this self that perceives itself as free?
 
> I'm not proposing either. Firstly, I'm arguing that the self exists, because I can identify characteristics in myself which distinguish me from others, and vice versa. This has nothing to do with free will, because even if those characteristics are due to factors beyond my control, they are still what constitute "me". Secondly, I do not know if or to what extent I have free will, because I do not know the extent to which my decisions are governed by biochemistry, general heredity, the environment, experience etc. I don't understand how compatibilists can "escape" from these constraints without embracing the same mind/body dualism as libertarians. 
They [compatibilists] change the definition of free will subtly as we did before to something like the ability to make conscious choices. We have to throw in conscious here because computers make choices.-> (What is "more dualistic"? As I see it, either the mind is separate from the brain or it isn't.) As regards dualism itself, until we have a convincing account of how materials can generate consciousness of themselves, I prefer to keep an open mind, which means that I neither accept nor dismiss the idea that some form of energy may influence our chemicals rather than the chemicals being the sole producers and controllers of that energy. This also leaves me open-minded in relation to some of the so-called psychic events we have discussed before on this forum.-The question remains are we actually conscious? ... I know Blackmore gets a lot of flack here, but in my opinion undeservedly so.-And "some form of energy" does not allow the free will believer escape the clutches of cause and effect. Unless we deny cause and effect, then logically it leaves our ability to make choices independently of bioelectrochemistry or the interactions of unidentified forms of energy on shaky ground. A belief in even the possibility of free will is hard to rconcile.