How to prove we have a permanent 'self'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BenSinner
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BenSinner

Guest
How do we prove the ‘self’ exists and is permanent?

I came across an article giving a more scientific approach to a “non-self”

The Buddhist belief that “the self" isn't constant, but ever-changing, according to neuroscience — Quartz

Here are some of the main points of the article:

Evan Thompson, a philosophy of mind professor at the University of British Columbia, tells Quartz. “And from a neuroscience perspective, the brain and body is constantly in flux. There’s nothing that corresponds to the sense that there’s an unchanging self.”

There’s scientific evidence that “self-processing in the brain is not instantiated in a particular region or network, but rather extends to a broad range of fluctuating neural processes that do not appear to be self specific,” write the authors.
 
Are we to believe the thoughtful post I am replying to is a result of random electrons bouncing around in our brains ? Life and self is just a series of ordered and predicted biological processes ?
 
Rhubarb brings up a point.

Just because a thing is always changing, doesn’t mean it’s not still the same thing at it’s core?
 
You’d have a lot of work ahead of you - how you define the self, how you define identity, why the self can persist even though the physical and mental “stuff” of a person changes, but it’s possible.
 
Who is typing?
Who just typed the above sentence?

Is a table still a table if you saw off a leg or paint it blue?
 
Starting from a materialist viewpoint, approved by four out of five bhuddists or not, makes for a very long journey. Faith that God, Our Father, created us makes for a short trip.
Sentience pondered by AI programs is reasonable. The unchanging I, not self, as self is a bit “remote” whereas “I” aims straight for ego. And realize the unchanging I is related to free thinking hippies being groovy. Dead beat dads and the unchanging I brings more practical concerns to mind, I waft that by you to see if anything noticeable might come to mind.
The faithful should not see this question as the “hard problem” of materialists. I exist because God made me. My body may become a corpse but even still I exist because God made me. The Holy and Immortal One will never forget me nor you. This self is always loved in the eyes of God. The hard problem is well worth pursuing and may lead to great benefit in cognitive therapy and other great things. But this, too, would be providential and should be recognized as a gift from God. A wonderful, good and awesome Creator makes sourcing the core of self a trivial matter.
 
Faith is a wonderful thing for people that have it. Philosophy depends on more than faith though. At least if you’re talking with people who don’t share your faith or understand faith differently.
 
Depending on the definition of “self,” I tend to believe it’s mostly an illusion. Yes, we can include in the definition of “self” our being physically separate from others, and I would have to agree with this. I have a controversial spiritual exercise that can fill a person with love, peace, and great calm. I use it all the time. You need not be religious, but I believe it helps. Basically, you begin by putting every thought out of your mind. It takes practice, but I now enter it into almost immediately. You then proceed to put all worldly pleasures and mental images out of your mind. Depending on your definition of “self” this goes to. Things like pride and self-esteem have vanished. What you’re left with is a completely emptied mind that produces love, peace, and great calm. The name of this is “Centering Prayer” and is not only used in monasteries, but more and more psychologists are using it on their patients. It does not blind the human psyche, but frees it for the first time!
 
What does “self processing” even mean in the context of physical processes? He is only saying that because he has a self-identity and he has a non-scientific commitment to the idea that the “self” is identical in nature to a material process.
 
Last edited:
The brains role in making us aware of our “self” or making the sensory perception of self, is not evidence that the “self-identity” is identical in nature to the brain. It merely evidence of a relationship between the brain and the self identity. Its impossible for the scientific method to prove that the two are identical.

The claim that the “Sense of self is a by product of brain activity” is fine, but that claim is not the same thing as saying that the existence or nature of the self-identity (the thing that knows itself) is a physical by-product of the brain. To say that it is, is not science but rather a philosophical interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Robert_Sock said:
I tend to believe it’s mostly an illusion.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Buddhism or some kind of eastern philosophical point of view (i am you and you are me, there is no i). Christianity is different. It embraces individualism, to an extent
 
Over in another thread we were discussing accidentals and substance.
40.png
Real presence in Eucharist Non-Catholic Religions
Well, since you were conceived in your mother’s womb which began your life, your body developed then you were born, went through childhood, the teens, matured to manhood and are whatever your age is now. You have gone through a lot of changes physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually perhaps, gained knowledge, maybe are married and have children, other relationships. The human being or person you are now is the same human being and person when you were conceived and born into the world. M…
Click to expand...
Perhaps relevant here.

Brain and its actions could be accidentals but the true self…well, that is another level.
 
There is God, and God alone! We are not separate from Him. Only in this lowly world do we believe we are separate.
 
Robert_Sock said:
There is God, and God alone! We are not separate from Him. Only in this lowly world do we believe we are separate.
Click to expand...
God is the absolute antithesis of nothing, and in that regard we are only real because God thinks of us. We are in the mind of God. In that respect we have no intrinsic act of existence ourselves (the reality of us does not come from our own nature or power) and i can agree to that extent that only God is intrinsically real. However our nature, in so far as God bestows upon us our being, is not identical to God. If it was, we would eternally exist and would not change. It would not be possible for us to begin to exist because our being would be absolutely and intrinsically perfect. This is clearly not the case.
 
Last edited:
I’m so lost in this thread. How would we not have a permanent self!?
 
@BenSinner

I would offer the below. it was one of the questions (and my response) on one of my philosophy exams. (I also posted this on a couple of other threads.) What this proposes is that the soul is immortal. If we relate that “self” is the soul, then the self is permanent.

Prove (completely) that the human soul is immortal.

Man is made of soul and body. The soul is the form of man, its act, and the body is the matter – the soul forms the matter into a human being. One of the unique powers of man, one that is not shared with the animals, is its power to do intellection. This power is one of the powers of the soul. Through the senses (hearing, sight, etc.) we gain sensory data from the world around us. With intellection, one can take the particular objects that one perceives, for example, Rex and Fido, and from that sensory information can conceive of a universal or essence, which, in this particular instance, would be “dog”. Intellection can also conceive of spiritual things (God), abstract things (freedom), and even imaginary things (one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eaters). We can conceptualize, think, reason. While the intellect has an extrinsic dependency on the body for sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, the act of intellection itself is independent of the body, since the objects of intellection – universals, the spiritual, the abstract, the imaginary – are concepts that have no specific instances in the perceived reality.

Since the acts of intellection are not reliant on the body, this means that the soul is non-organic; it is spiritual. Since the soul is not reliant on the body for the acts of intellection, this would mean that the soul is subsistent, per se, and that it is simple since it has no matter, only form. Since it is simple, it cannot corrupt; to corrupt would mean the separation of the form and matter. Since the soul does not have any matter, it would not be able to corrupt.

Further, since the soul is subsistent, it cannot indirectly corrupt, since it has no dependency on anything else, as would an accident; an accident could indirectly corrupt if the thing that it was dependent upon for its existence corrupted. Since the soul is subsistent and it thus not an accident, it cannot indirectly corrupt.
The soul could not be taken up into some “cosmic soul” because this would imply that the soul could lose its identity. As mentioned above, the soul is subsistent, per se, and thus cannot lose its identity.

Also, the soul cannot be annihilated. Since God is outside of time, this would mean that God would have willed the soul into being and then willed it out of being at the same time. However, God does not change His mind, so once the soul comes into being, it remains.

To conclude: the soul cannot directly or indirectly corrupt; it cannot be merged into a cosmic soul; it cannot be annihilated; the soul cannot go out of being. It is therefore immortal.

I hope this helps.

Blessings
 
There is another step into this which must be considered. As creatures of special creation human persons are both body and soul. We are male and female and form permanent unions in marriage reflecting God’s perfect community of love. The ideal is the greatest gift we receive in co-creation of children who also have “self” with permanence of an eternal, rational soul.
The Incarnation showing us His Mercy through the Passion brings forth hope
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top