Science of Self (Humans)

by dhw, Sunday, March 09, 2014, 16:00 (3910 days ago) @ romansh

GEORGE: Do "you" really exist?-http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/inquiring-minds-jennifer-ouellette-scien...-QUOTE: This also means the self is very fragile. Damage the brain or cease its function, and the self may dissipate. Die, of course, and the story is the same. "I expected people to object more to my take on what happens to your conscious self after you die," Ouellette confesses. "Because I basically say there is no soul. Or rather, your soul is this conscious thing that is emergent, and once all that activity that leads to the emergent phenomenon disappears, so does that, it's gone."-ROMANSH: I must admit I always find the word emergent a bit of a none word.
 -We have in the past, I think, all accepted Ouellette's definition of "emergence" as "a system in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". I'm not keen on her example of a traffic jam. A much better one, I think, would be the motor car itself. None of its constituent parts on their own will produce the energy to make the car move. It's only their interaction that does this. Take away certain parts, and the car won't function. Some folk believe that the self is an emergent property of the interaction between the brain (with all its different functions), the rest of the body, the environment and experience. Given the above definition, I'd say the word is extremely useful!-I do have a problem, though, with David's belief that this emergent property can survive the death of the brain. That could only mean that what emerges takes on a form that is INDEPENDENT of the brain ... like a car's automotive energy surviving the loss of its engine and wheels.-ROMANSH: Many modern psychologists and scientists in general have doubts about the self
Bruce Hood (from your neck of the woods DHW) wrote the the Self Illusion.
You tube-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIDWcWn21gg-ROMANSH Understanding that it [the self] is illusory is pretty good step towards advancement. I am confident that with a bit of ingenuity and time we can progress towards understanding the absence of self and the consequences of such a worldview.
If indeed the self is illusory, then a belief in free will is becomes more difficult ... at least for me.-I am almost certain, Romansh, that it was you who pointed out to us a long time ago ... as Hood does here ... that "illusory" does not mean something does not exist. It means that something is not what it seems. This is a very important distinction. I would argue that the self does exist, and that everyone has the ability to take his or her own decisions in certain contexts ... if we make that a defining element of "free will" ... but that neither the "self" nor "free will" are as self-contained or as free as they appear to be. The combination of brain, body, environment and experience mentioned above clearly entails factors over which we have no control, and so both our identity and our ability to take decisions are under influences we may not be aware of. Nevertheless, that particular combination is what gives each of us our uniqueness, even if we do find it impossible to separate our "selves" and our decisions from the influences that have shaped and continue to shape them.