Is there such a thing that you call your "self"?

If so, describe it.

egon spengler

there is no real "you" apparently. Personality is a simulation run by the modules of the brain. On another note I think people can confuse the statement "I have changed" with "I am new." I dont think that people can fashion new personalities but they can channel their identities into new modes of expression. Personality is imo genetically determined although it can be influenced by environmental factors. We can choose to represent/express ourselves in different ways but that does not mean we become new people. We are still the same as we were from birth.

biko

I blame Descartes

nutgroist

coolsmileygirl wrote:

If so, describe it.

*points towards own body*

This thing pointing and the thing being pointed to, that's my self

But if this thing is not pointing at itself, is there still a self?

McGinty

Why do you blame descartes, explain why?

To the op, explain the definition of self, don't look for everyone else opinions, find one for yourself.

As to myself re: the self, the more I age, the less I know, not because I am thick, but because I think more deeply, but also because life throws more at me, and hence I understand less. I would concur with egon spengler to a degree, there is a a core element to the self when we are born and this progresses through right up to death (I think, I have't got there yet, so can't say for sure), and whilst we believe we change, it is not us that changes, it is our perceptions, we mature, fall in love, fall out love, have children, change jobs, change religion, change lifestyle, change approach to life, but does the self change, that I am not sure, we have to define what is the self. Is it our body, our mind, our emotions, our lifestyle, our ego or our soul. Personally I wonder is the self made up of the soul, body, mind, emotion and ego. I cannot say I know, I just wonder, what can be changed to a certain degree is our thoughts, our ego, our body but the soul cannot be changed, it is beyond the material, it is the immaterial, and maybe that is the true self.

toaster

egon spengler wrote:

I dont think that people can fashion new personalities but they can channel their identities into new modes of expression.

i disagree. those who've experienced some sort of trauma such as abuse or loss or as you've said environmental factors like war, anything severely traumatic creates an alter ego. having a stroke creates a different personality oft times. like the person was a total jerk in his former life before but, is more mellow and labile.

i work in the psych wing of a large hospital and whenever i read thru the psych/social histories of people, it amazes me how drastic the personality transforms after traumatic experiences and years of substance abuse.

egon spengler

toaster wrote:

i disagree. those who've experienced some sort of trauma such as abuse or loss or as you've said environmental factors like war, anything severely traumatic creates an alter ego. having a stroke creates a different personality oft times. like the person was a total jerk in his former life before but, is more mellow and labile.

i work in the psych wing of a large hospital and whenever i read thru the psych/social histories of people, it amazes me how drastic the personality transforms after traumatic experiences and years of substance abuse.

do they actually have new identities or just have a different way of expressing and reacting to things. Teh person who is a jerk but then becomes mellow- are is he not the same personality at the end of the day with a changed way of looking at things and behaving? Like when someone gets angry, at that moment they are behaving differently but at an essential level they are still the same person/mind as when they are mellow

Dunners

egon spengler wrote:

...changed way of looking at things and behaving?

If a person has a changed way of looking at things and behaving has not by definition their personality changed? Personality defines who we are and as such defines how we look out into the world and react to given situations. If our outlook and reactions have changed from what they once were, for whatever reason, then surely this is evidence that our personality has changed.

egon spengler

Dunners wrote:

If a person has a changed way of looking at things and behaving has not by definition their personality changed? Personality defines who we are and as such defines how we look out into the world and react to given situations. If our outlook and reactions have changed from what they once were, for whatever reason, then surely this is evidence that our personality has changed.

changed but not new. There is still an innate mind/entity behind the different outlook or mood.

Dunners

egon spengler wrote:

changed but not new. There is still an innate mind/entity behind the different outlook or mood.

If a change is drastic enough can it not be classed as new? Surely you're not going to say that if I go to the complete opposite of my current outlook due to trauma, etc my personality - controlling my outlook and responses - cannot be said to have changed enough so as to be a new personality?

egon spengler

Dunners wrote:

If a change is drastic enough can it not be classed as new? Surely you're not going to say that if I go to the complete opposite of my current outlook due to trauma, etc my personality - controlling my outlook and responses - cannot be said to have changed enough so as to be a new personality?

but does change entail "newness" or the creation of something new. To be abstract and hence dodging the question somewhat (beh!) I would think that change involves the alteration of an existing configuration of elements, not the creation of new elements within that configuration. What comes out of that configuration may be the appearance of something new but its still divisible to teh same elements which are innate and already there.

biko

McGinty wrote:

Why do you blame descartes, explain why?

Because of mind-body dualism, which has spilt the self into two parts, body and soul, triggering eternal discourse on "what the soul is" etc.

Catsmokinpot

a neurosurgeon dr penfield used to do experiments on his patients and one day he was operating on a patient and he was stimulating a certain part of the brain cortex with an electrical probe and the patients arm started moving upwards, when he asked the patient was he moving the arm, he replied, my arm is moving up, then he made a discovery: no matter how much he tried to find the location of the one who decides to move the arm up he couldnt find it, all he could find was that which executes the command.

so if you asked me to pick up a pen or throw a ball, or if i decide to put on these runners or those runners, you will not find the location of the person who makes that choice. you wont even find an electrical impulse. but if the choice maker isnt in my head where is it?? its almost as if its everywhere and nowhere at once. and who is it? its me, mr infinite choice sitting in the gap between my thoughts. between thoughts of picking up a pen and then choosing to throw a ball is a gap, this gap is me the choice maker, the self.

wether we are complicated computers or not we are here. i am me and you are you.

whats wierd is that me, the choice maker doesnt seem to be inside my body. which brings me to string theory that says we are not particles but strings of energy all connected, i think we are all connected, but seperate at the same time. but i think that field is where we all come from, the conscious decision makers. from a field of information and energy

biko

Interesting. I would be more of the B.F. Skinner school myself. Note that Skinner was also atheist (this kinda limits us to act upon empirical, measurable data and disregard fatih). Therefore my view is that there is no "soul", no "deus ex machina" pulling the little levers inside.

Man (that is you) is a very complicated automaton, acting and drawing on past experiences to make decisions. The older you get the more experiences you have to draw from to make a decision.

Btw, this also means that there is no after-life.

egon spengler

this probably isnt going to be very coherent but has anyone asked "why am I me?" as opposed to anyone else, not as in the how, the random combination of events determined by streamlining factors, but in terms of the why. I mean I could be anyone else but why am I specifically me? I guess that goes into the "what is the meaning of meaning" territory but its something I find intriguing.

Catsmokinpot

biko wrote:

Interesting. I would be more of the B.F. Skinner school myself. Note that Skinner was also atheist (this kinda limits us to act upon empirical, measurable data and disregard fatih). Therefore my view is that there is no "soul", no "deus ex machina" pulling the little levers inside.

Man (that is you) is a very complicated automaton, acting and drawing on past experiences to make decisions. The older you get the more experiences you have to draw from to make a decision.

you could say that, and its technically plausable, but thats a bit of a bleak outlook on life. and also kind of insulting to life, as we are nothing like machines

as deepak chopra said "if you find the idea of a soul uncomfortable you can call it a continuum of probability distributions for possible measurements as functions of time" and if you really think it is a program inside our heads, there would really be no point to it all. i mean do you sit there and speak to a "complicated automaton" when your discussing things in this forum or when you go to the shop or when your in the pub? no you speak to a person, now you can break me down in to tiny parts and pieces but when you look at the big picture, you me and everything in creation is flowing with intelligence and energy. and we have a soul whether you want to call it something else or not we have one.

i always find athiests to be kind of disgruntled when it comes to spirituality, as if religion has let you down or something it doesnt mean that there is no such thing as a spirit to be spiritual about.

Btw, this also means that there is no after-life.

one of the big laws of the universe is that energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred from one place/form to another, throughout ur life your being renewed, every atom in your body is replaced every 13 months yet you still remain you.... your outliving your Physical death every moment of your existance. your not just some physical body, infact not even the physical is physical, all an atom is is energy + information slowed down to a vibration, i dont believe in an afterlife, but i do believe you and i were here before, and we will be here again.

egon spengler wrote:

this probably isnt going to be very coherent but has anyone asked "why am I me?" as opposed to anyone else, not as in the how, the random combination of events determined by streamlining factors, but in terms of the why. I mean I could be anyone else but why am I specifically me? I guess that goes into the "what is the meaning of meaning" territory but its something I find intriguing.

i think we come from a universe of infinite possibility, you fell out of that field of possibility and landed in those shoes because its so damn interesting, i dont think that whats happening now could have happened anyother way, and its not as if you can go back in time and change anything. because time isnt something that is lost as time is just a measurement of the changing of the universe, and i dont think you can reverse the sequence of all the atoms in the universe because the universe is unstoppable.

Spectator#1

This is a bit of a confusing thread. You all seem to be arguing about fine points before agreeing on the meanings of the terms you're using.

egon spengler wrote:

there is no real "you" apparently.

Exactly what extension does the term "you" have in that very bold statement and to whom are you referring when you say "apparently"?

egon spengler wrote:

Personality is a simulation run by the modules of the brain.

This sounds like a functionalist theory of mind; the idea that the relation between the brain and mind is similar to that of a computer's hardware and its software, is that what you are referring to?

egon spengler wrote:

On another note I think people can confuse the statement "I have changed" with "I am new." I dont think that people can fashion new personalities but they can channel their identities into new modes of expression.

Well that would presuppose that everybody has the exact same conception of what 'personality' or 'identity' is. Your point is only really relevant to those people that believe there is an underlying and intrinsic 'self' that subsists throughout change; like an Aristotelian substance and its accidents.
Other people would take the stance that they (being their 'selves' or minds) are nothing but the sum total of their opinions and experiences and if these change, so do they, in which case personality is constantly renewed.

egon spengler wrote:

Personality is imo genetically determined although it can be influenced by environmental factors. We can choose to represent/express ourselves in different ways but that does not mean we become new people. We are still the same as we were from birth.

Well that is only based on an assumption that 'self' is identified with the body and is indeed, as you say, genetically determined, which is just one position in a hotly debated field of investigation.

biko wrote:

I blame Descartes

Me too!

nutgroist wrote:

*points towards own body*

This thing pointing and the thing being pointed to, that's my self

But if this thing is not pointing at itself, is there still a self?

Yes, why do you ask?

Mcginty wrote:

we have to define what is the self. Is it our body, our mind, our emotions, our lifestyle, our ego or our soul. Personally I wonder is the self made up of the soul, body, mind, emotion and ego. I cannot say I know, I just wonder, what can be changed to a certain degree is our thoughts, our ego, our body but the soul cannot be changed, it is beyond the material, it is the immaterial, and maybe that is the true self.

I agree, we do have to define what the 'self' is. We also have to define each of the terms you listed there as possibilities, ie. mind, emotion and ego, are they not all contained under mind?
Further, your point about the soul is interesting, the problem is, on what grounds are you basing an idea of the soul? Some would say that all there is is our thoughts (and/or our ego) and our body and nothing else and so if these can change, does our self not change too?

egon spengler wrote:

do they actually have new identities or just have a different way of expressing and reacting to things. Teh person who is a jerk but then becomes mellow- are is he not the same personality at the end of the day with a changed way of looking at things and behaving? Like when someone gets angry, at that moment they are behaving differently but at an essential level they are still the same person/mind as when they are mellow

changed but not new. There is still an innate mind/entity behind the different outlook or mood.

Well that is open to debate. Is there something other than just our thoughts and our outlooks? You and toaster are using different approaches to what mind is and so are running into confusion.
I propose that we take into account the current arguments about what 'self' is and then identify our positions, that way we will be able to discuss this in a more rigorous way.
There are four main positions in the philosophy of mind:

1. Mind/Body Dualism. There are a lot of sub-divisions within this paradigm. As you all know, everyone's favourite whipping boy Descartes is the main man for this point of view with his idea of the immaterial soul and the extended, material body and the pineal gland point of interaction between the two. There have been many refinements since then, look it up on Wikipedia for a good summary.

2. Behaviourism. As Biko has already explained, behaviourists would take the opinion that 'mind' is just the word people use to explain people's actions. There is no such thing as a 'self' as such, just a load of quantitative acts in the physical world.

3. Mind/Brain Identity Theory. Not a very popular theory today since Putnam proposed Functionalism. The basic tenet is that what we call mind and brain are the exact same thing, mental processes are reducible to electrical activity in the brain.

4. Functionalism. This is <b>the</b> theory of the moment as regards philosophy of mind. It claims that mental processes, while not being identifiable with physical processes, arise out of them. It is a more flexible theory than M/B Id Theory because it doesn't actually identify exact mental states with exact physical states, there are many ways the brain could work to produce the same result. The hardware-software analogy is a useful one but overly simplistic, which Putnam himself admitted.

Wikipedia has useful summaries of each of these positions. Personally I would consider Functionalism to be the most useful way of thinking about self or mind; it identifies it as dependent on a physical, extended object, made up of complex parts yet not equivalent to merely the sum of those parts.
In this way you could say that there is a substratum underlying the self that remains constant throughout all change; the brain.