Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: Rydrallen]
    #15969039 -

Rydrallen said:
Even the way hallucinogens affect the mind suggest some things about this "reality" - Serotonin blocks reality by regulating the firing of neurons so that they don't work too fast or process too much information. Psilocybin allows your brain to process all the information that it is fed from all sources, without regulation or limitation by serotonin.

So in a way, it's actually more real than when you aren't tripping. And yet...get this, you're "hallucinating", seeing things that "aren't real".



Read a study recently where they took MRI scans of people on psilocybin.  Apparently the result is a reduction of brain activity in areas concerned with our preconceived construction of reality.  So basically, when you trip, all of your beliefs and assumptions you've built up in years of experience drop away, and you experience reality in a less inhibited manner.  Definitely agree that in a way it's more real.

I personally dislike the word illusion as it has connotations of things being fake, whereas I see reality and the self as a mental construct, without any duality.  From my point of view, we are all one mind, and the external world and internal world are connected fully.  The illusion is moreso in the separateness and division than any sort of unrealness, imo.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: Pacmanpth]
    #15970748 -

Quote:
I think your language here implies a divide between subjective experience and self


I'm saying that there is no divide. In fact, I'd say there's no divide between subjectivity and experience. Experiences is simply the phenomenon had by the subject. If the self is defined in terms that thing which produces subjective experience, you can't deny the self without also denying subjective experience. We know that there is subjective experience. Some would probably say that's the only thing we can ever be completely certain of. So to call the self illusory makes no sense.

Quote:
other than a physical entity there is nothing that possesses the experience, the experience is just another object, not fundamentally different from a rock or anything else


Maybe, maybe not... if we start from the axiom that there is subjective experience, and go from there, we'll see that physical objects such as rocks can be accounted for objectively. Subjective experience cannot. So we're left with that knowledge that there is something real we refer to as the subjective experience, yet we have no objective account for it as we do the rock. So to say it's no different than the rock, or any other physical object, demands an explanation. If they were the same, we'd have an objective account for both. So far I haven't heard one, but only glossing over it by calling it illusory... which doesn't do much in terms of providing an explanation. Seems like we'd prefer calling something an illusion rather than admitting our inability to account for something we know to be real.

Quote:
The illusion of self IMO is the illusion that there is a fundamental difference between subjective experience and any other object.


That assumes there's an illusion to begin with. We can't call something an illusion simply because we don't have an explanation for it. If it is an illusion, then my previous questions would have an answer. The only reason it is believed that there's a fundamental difference between subjective experience and any other object is that we have an objective account for one and not the other. So the idea that the self is an illusion (that is, there is no fundamental difference) would require an objective account of subjective experience. If we can't at least in principle find one, then there is a fundamental difference, and it's no longer an illusion. I don't believe that we can, even in principle, have this objective account. If the materialists are unable to find one, this idea of an illusory self starts to crumble away.

Quote:
The "I"ing activity is just another object, a facet that the organism uses to relate to the world and function within it, but it's just a behaviour.


This is why David Chalmers uses the zombie analogy. We can give a totally coherent scientific explanation for environmental interactions in terms of sensory stimuli, reactions, and really any human action. Plants interact with their environment in a number of ways. Humans do so in more complex ways, but we shouldn't think there's anything fundamentally different about it. But the fact remains, there's nothing about that scientific story that accounts for why such physical processes should be accompanied by a subjective experience. You could even explain complex civilizations in terms of complex neural process and stimuli responses. There's no reason to bring subjective experience into the equation. And yet it's there, staring us all right in the face.

Quote:
the illusion is to imagine it is other than a fleeting shadow or fading footprint in an ocean of experiencing.


:nojustno:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #15970956 -

redgreenvines said:
circastes said:
What's a self but a behaviour pattern?

The question itself is a sign of unnatural thinking/abstracting.

There is one thing only, you don't give it a name. It doesn't need to be found, or held. Just walk on...


questioning is not unnatural
abstraction is not unnatural
it is more than a pattern or we would not be fascinated
the properties of it are engaging (magnetic as it were)
as amazing as the mystery of magnetism
do not walk on as if it were nothing.


Listen to yourself redgreenvines. I do not disagree with your statement that questioning and abstracting are not unnatural acts of the mind. In which case, questioning and abstracting is a rather usual thing for Man. However, your following attempt to bring some sort of great significance to the matter is rather dualistic and self-contradicting, unless you are fascinated by the usual (which is actually not a bad thing at all).

Generally, fascination is easily directed and the fascination with one self can be easily explained even by the most basic self-interest/survival modes of behavior, which are a factor within all forms of life. The following, concerning magnetism are a beautiful set of words. But that's all it is. The way I see it, circastes hada great point. He is not asking you to walk on as if these things are of little importance (though importance is relative) or were nothing, he humbly suggests there's a deeper seated meaning that lies beyond the mere concept of "self" (hence, "There is one thing only, you don't give it a name.").

There is nothing to discuss, as you already possess and experience it, therefore, walk on with a smile. Asking if the concept of "self" is touching upon any objective (another slippery concept) reality (and another) is just juggling concepts when we all know that the human mind (and the way it functions) is still very much a mystery to us. "Walk on" mean "restrain yourself from putting together the puzzle with missing pieces". Be content with what you experience rather than what you are aware of. Being aware of fractions is more of a burden than being aware of the entire thing. And it would seem we are not yet ready for that.


--------------------
:watchingyou: :raptorJesus: :teabird: :watchingyou:

Excerpts of inner dialogue III-V-VIII:

"Im no saint, but I do have genuine intentions."
"So you believe in intensions?"
"No. I believe in being genuine."

"The goal is to become more child-like, and less child-ish."

Edited by MotherNaturesSon (03/20/12 11:21 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: MotherNaturesSon]
    #15972809 -

MotherNaturesSon said:
...
There is nothing to discuss, as you already possess and experience it, therefore, walk on with a smile. Asking if the concept of "self" is touching upon any objective (another slippery concept) reality (and another) is just juggling concepts when we all know that the human mind (and the way it functions) is still very much a mystery to us. "Walk on" mean "restrain yourself from putting together the puzzle with missing pieces". Be content with what you experience rather than what you are aware of. Being aware of fractions is more of a burden than being aware of the entire thing. And it would seem we are not yet ready for that.


using words you can wrangle the issue such that you have greater understanding, or you can manipulate an attitude to the matter - Like posturing, or lining up in camps.

however, by raising the question and sitting with the question, you do get closer to the matter.

I do what I can to make sitting with this matter more attractive, and I think it is a good question to keep revisiting.
I do not think you need any explicit answer, but I am opposed to the idea of walking away from it.

walking on with a smile, maybe (because of the smile), walking on as if you have failed - no, I do not support that - you have not failed.
by asking about consciousness you have made some progress in orienting to things that transcend the mundane.

this is an area where the question is more important than the answer.
where questing itself is more valuable than sparring with words.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: redgreenvines] * 1
    #15973037 -

redgreenvines said:
MotherNaturesSon said:
...
There is nothing to discuss, as you already possess and experience it, therefore, walk on with a smile. Asking if the concept of "self" is touching upon any objective (another slippery concept) reality (and another) is just juggling concepts when we all know that the human mind (and the way it functions) is still very much a mystery to us. "Walk on" mean "restrain yourself from putting together the puzzle with missing pieces". Be content with what you experience rather than what you are aware of. Being aware of fractions is more of a burden than being aware of the entire thing. And it would seem we are not yet ready for that.


...

walking on with a smile, maybe (because of the smile), walking on as if you have failed - no, I do not support that - you have not failed.
by asking about consciousness you have made some progress in orienting to things that transcend the mundane.

this is an area where the question is more important than the answer.
where questing itself is more valuable than sparring with words.


See, that's the only reason I wanted to reply to you. I feel like you took a potential post and misunderstood it by thinking he meant "walk on as if you have failed", as you put it. Just wanted to help out to maybe have you see another side to it, what I believe he most likely meant as our thought pattern seemed similar. We have both gained great benefit from this brief exchange of thought, friend -bows-


--------------------
:watchingyou: :raptorJesus: :teabird: :watchingyou:

Excerpts of inner dialogue III-V-VIII:

"Im no saint, but I do have genuine intentions."
"So you believe in intensions?"
"No. I believe in being genuine."

"The goal is to become more child-like, and less child-ish."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: Kickle]
    #15977003 -

Kickle said:
More than the idea of there not being a self, period. I find that the Buddha's teachings illuminate the reality much better. It isn't that there is no self, it's that the self that exists is not an intrinsically existing self.

Intrinsic here suggesting it is arising out of some independent thing.

Buddhism goes on to break down why it feels this way by asking practitioners to explore whether or not there is any independent thing for the self to arise out of in the first place. Every time that I have looked I have come up empty handed. I can't find anything that isn't dependent. And so I arrive at the conclusion that there is no independent thing out of which the self might arise. And so I agree with the Buddha in saying that the self does not intrinsically exist.

I've found there is no "me" as a property of some independent thing, which is very counter-intuitive and bizarre really. Yet at the same time this does not negate that there is a me. It is a useful technique to question our assumptions about me myself and I, and I've found Buddhism to be particularly good about spurring the questioning of assumptions.


:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: weshroom]
    #15977108 -

right?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: saintphotios]
    #16005367 -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Self

Quote:
Self
noun 

4.
Philosophy .
a.
the ego; that which knows, remembers, desires, suffers, etc., as contrasted with that known, remembered, etc.

b.
the uniting principle, as a soul, underlying all subjective experience.



It's not that there is no self, quite the contrary: there's nothing but the Self. You are the talking monkey that everyone expects you to admit you are, but you're not limited to the talking monkey; in other words, you are your body, but you're not your body any more or any less than you are anything else for that matter.


It all breaks down to a hidden assumption that our language is based upon that doesn't correspond to reality: it divides everything into verbs and nouns; patterns and forms, events and things. But what are things? Is your keyboard a static "thing" or is it a dynamic process that gets damaged as time and use take their toll on it and moves and reacts to the light pressures your fingers imprint on it? While noun and verb are two separate syntactic categories in western languages, in chinese, for example, noun and verb are pragmatic categories and not separated from each other.

So applying this to the case in discussion: is your body a thing or a process? You can transform any noun into a verb by saying it in the gerund, so do you have a body or are you bodying? Or I could phrase it with different words: are you your body or are you bodying? Notice that the concepts of "your" and "having", of possession, are also axiomatic of our language and not correspondent with anything in the natural world, (in other words, it's a rule of grammar, not a law of nature). The problem of understanding reality lies in deconstructing our languages' hidden assumptions, which are illusions of logic, fallacies, because they are false foundations for a process of reasoning, and the same happens to a reasoning built upon illusory foundations as with a house built upon illusory foundations: it eventually crumbles.

So, then, if you recognize that a form is just a pattern out of focus, a thing is just a process out of focus, a noun is just a verb out of focus, then you also recognize that there is no observer separate from what is observed. There's no feeler of feelings, no thinker of thoughts, no doer of deeds, there are only feelings, thoughts and deeds. Then there can't remain a definition of yourself as being trapped inside a primate body, because who is it that is trapped inside that body? We reach a paradox, a logical dead end, when we ask that question, and whenever you bump into a paradox it simply means you're using faulty logic.

When this stage of understanding is reached, there's nothing stopping you from accepting that you are everything.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: GoreTuzk]
    #16005842 -

redgreenvines are you some kind of magical gnome?


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Is the self really an illusion? [Re: EternalCowabunga]
    #16007002 -

my avatar is on top of a bowling pin.
it was delivered to me in a volley that dealt with how many angels dance on a pin.
everything degenerated from there.
I took it into myself.
you could think of it as a gnome at this point if you like.
I think it's a danish sex toy.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Mushroom-Hut Mono Tub Substrate

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* objective and subjective states of mind Grav 2,402 5 03/18/03 01:21 PM
by Cherk
* illusion spudamore 863 15 02/18/05 03:09 PM
by redgreenvines
* ? "Illusion of Reality"
( 1 2 all )		 Sclorch 3,374 22 05/11/02 03:39 PM
by Catalysis
* facts are subjective Moonshoe 1,144 11 10/25/05 07:18 PM
by Darcho
* Rationality, Objectivity and Logic
( 1 2 3 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 7,073 45 10/15/05 01:19 PM
by BlueCoyote
* Determinism & Objective/Subjective Morality TinTree 2,915 13 01/24/05 12:34 PM
by shroomydan
* can you prove the existence of absolute, objective morality?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 Anonymous 23,322 157 12/21/04 08:31 AM
by deafpanda
* Are morals subjective?
( 1 2 all )		 Anonymous 6,364 35 04/24/03 07:58 AM
by MarkostheGnostic

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
1,467 topic views. 0 members, 7 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 17 queries.