The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Jack Sovalot <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> wrote:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems,
cortex, and a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent self.
The self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere along
the way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than a tincture
of social construction about it.
This self you speak of is highly derived and not fundamental.
Bacteria do just fine without it, though maybe bacteria association
influence our (mis)perception of self in how they modulate the gut
brain which in turn communicates with our noggin brain.
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
nuts coming from it.
Jack Sovalot <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> wrote:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems, cortex, and
a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent self.
The self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere along the way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than a tincture of social construction about it.
This self you speak of is highly derived and not fundamental. Bacteria do just fine without it, though maybe bacteria association influence our (mis)perception of self in how they modulate the gut brain which in turn communicates with our noggin brain.
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of nuts coming from it.Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help *all* DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared inAre you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of nuts >coming from it.
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help *all* DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
unexplained, BTW)
in not becoming lion chow?
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
*Hemidactylus* wrote:
Jack Sovalot <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> wrote:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems,
cortex, and a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent self.
The self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere along
the way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than a tincture
of social construction about it.
This self you speak of is highly derived and not fundamental.
Bacteria do just fine without it, though maybe bacteria association
influence our (mis)perception of self in how they modulate the gut
brain which in turn communicates with our noggin brain.
Thank you so much, Hemidactylus.
Yes, I'd read that shy mice will become gregarious if you move bacteria
into their guts from the guts of gregarious mice. Fascinating.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58 AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass it,
as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
Bob Casanova wrote:No answer.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a question.
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58?AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass it,
as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a
question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Jack Sovalot <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> wrote:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems, cortex, and
a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent self.
The self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere along the way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than a tincture of social construction about it.
This self you speak of is highly derived and not fundamental. Bacteria do just fine without it, though maybe bacteria association influence our (mis)perception of self in how they modulate the gut brain which in turn communicates with our noggin brain.
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a
question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Oh. I think I understand now. It's too ambiguous, is that it? I should
have said "pass along our genes to future generations".
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 5:42:58 PM UTC, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Jack Sovalot <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> wrote:
DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems, cortex, and >> a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent self.
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so
I'm assuming it's hard wired.
sure, but does that matter? Lots of advantageous traits (which then all
help DNA to replicate, i.e. getting passed on) evolved long after DNA
The self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere along the
way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than a tincture of social
construction about it.
Interesting, ,but I'd like to see that fleshed out more - do you think "self" is
experienced differently in different cultures (and how would we know?) Surely
you are not arguing that people in some cultures are more likely to pass the mirror
test than in others? (excluding arguably Vampires, for whom mirror tests don't work,
but that is an artefact of the test setup)
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a
question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Oh. I think I understand now. It's too ambiguous, is that it? I should
have said "pass along our genes to future generations".
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
On Friday, February 2, 2024 at 5:42:58 PM UTC, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Jack Sovalot <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> wrote:
DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems, cortex, and
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and so >>> I'm assuming it's hard wired.
a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent self.
sure, but does that matter? Lots of advantageous traits (which then all help DNA to replicate, i.e. getting passed on) evolved long after DNA
The self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere along the >> way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than a tincture of social >> construction about it.
Interesting, ,but I'd like to see that fleshed out more - do you think "self" is
experienced differently in different cultures (and how would we know?) Surely
you are not arguing that people in some cultures are more likely to pass the mirror
test than in others? (excluding arguably Vampires, for whom mirror tests don't work,
but that is an artefact of the test setup)
There are individualist and collectivist cultures, the former more narcissistic and latter more effacing and other oriented. Socialization and enculturation may play some role in identity construction.
Does Buddhist denial of selfhood versus the US obsession with being self-made and sufficient not indicate profound cultural distinctions? Are guilt and shame not distinctive culturally?
It may not be a difference in passing the mirror test but what such a thing actually indicates. We tend to ascribe a milestone of selfhood to it, but does it necessarily get invested with such a muddled concept?
Boomers are saddled with being the so-called “me” generation so maybe the
notion of selfhood fluctuates generationally. Was self-esteem always so important before Randroid Nat Branden helped put it on the map?
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:56:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58?AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and >> >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass it,
as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
OK, thanks. The basic explanation is sort of what I assumed,
based on the words alone. But no, I never encountered the
term *as a term*; I assume it's from philosophy.
As for the question regarding other species, the original
claim was nonspecific (other than "our"), and taken at face
value would seem to include all species with DNA which are
subject to selection. Either that, or the assumption was
that we're "special", a la "humans are different from
animals". Yeah, it was a bit snarky, but overgeneralizations
and sweeping universal claims bring that out in me.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
On 2/3/24 11:48 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 23:02:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>"Philosophy" is easier to bullshit. Remember the Sokol hoax?
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 17:40:49 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Whatever floats your boat;oes it help sequoias? Or bacteria?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self >>>>>>>>> models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things. >>>>>>>>
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a
question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Oh. I think I understand now. It's too ambiguous, is that it? I should >>>> have said "pass along our genes to future generations".
It seems to me to be essentially navel-gazing, since the
idea that the "self" is an illusion is itself an illusion,
promulgated by the very self which is asserted to be
illusory. IOW, how can an illusion determine the illusory
nature of a concept?
This is why, IMHO, philosophy, while a somewhat interesting
way to pass a rainy afternoon or a late-night bull session
(liberally lubricated with beer), is useless for determining
reality.
Your complaint above is about pseudo-philosophy, not actual
philosophy. If John Wilkins was still posting to T.O., he might tell
you that, just as there is pseudo-science, both can be abused and
misused to make up conclusions to suit personal whims. My experience
is pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy are the stock-in-trade of
pseudo-skeptics.
Ontology and epistemology are what Feynman was talking about when he
said that knowing the names of birds doesn't tell you anything about
the nature of birds. Behe notwithstanding, they are what distinguish
astrology and Intelligent Design and stamp-collecting from science.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 4:47:59 PM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:56:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58?AM UTC, Bob Casanovareplicate, and >> >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
things. >> >Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other
So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass
it, as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
OK, thanks. The basic explanation is sort of what I assumed,
based on the words alone. But no, I never encountered the
term *as a term*; I assume it's from philosophy.
As for the question regarding other species, the original
claim was nonspecific (other than "our"), and taken at face
value would seem to include all species with DNA which are
subject to selection. Either that, or the assumption was
that we're "special", a la "humans are different from
animals". Yeah, it was a bit snarky, but overgeneralizations
and sweeping universal claims bring that out in me.
Fair enough, it can be read like this. I parsed it the other way
round: there is a trait that (at least) humans have. It is universal
at least in our species, and in varying degrees in others. This then
raises the question if it is an adaptive trait that has been selected
for, or maybe was an adaptive trait in our evolutionary past but is
not any longer, or is not increasing chances of reproductive success
at all, and therefore has different explanations.
He opts for 1), and that seems to be mainstream in biology (in my
experience at least, it's mainly philosophers who would treat it, and consciousness in general, as a mere epiphenomenon, like the whislte
on the train that does not play a role in moving it)
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:24:54 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 4:47:59?PM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:56:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58?AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:OK, thanks. The basic explanation is sort of what I assumed,
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass it,
as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
based on the words alone. But no, I never encountered the
term *as a term*; I assume it's from philosophy.
As for the question regarding other species, the original
claim was nonspecific (other than "our"), and taken at face
value would seem to include all species with DNA which are
subject to selection. Either that, or the assumption was
that we're "special", a la "humans are different from
animals". Yeah, it was a bit snarky, but overgeneralizations
and sweeping universal claims bring that out in me.
Fair enough, it can be read like this. I parsed it the other way round: >there is a trait that (at least) humans have. It is universal at least
in our species, and in varying degrees in others. This then raises
the question if it is an adaptive trait that has been selected for, or >maybe was an adaptive trait in our evolutionary past but is not any longer, >or is not increasing chances of reproductive success at all, and therefore >has different explanations.
He opts for 1), and that seems to be mainstream in biology (in my >experience at least, it's mainly philosophers who would treat it, and >consciousness in general, as a mere epiphenomenon, like the whislte
on the train that does not play a role in moving it)
Fair enough. But ISTM that there's a basic disconnect here,
in that any claim that the self is illusory is being made by
a self-designated illusion, and is thus of zero value in
determining anything of substance; that is why I referred to
it as "navel-gazing". I can only operate on my perceptions,
which tell me that there's something unique to me which is
capable of observation, consideration and conclusion(s)
regarding events and objects in the physical world, and of
similar processes regarding that which cannot be observed
objectively but only experienced. I may be incorrect; we may
all exist in virtual reality a la The Matrix, but until and
unless I'm shown actual evidence that this is the case
(Agent Smith redraws my face to seal my mouth shut,
perhaps?) I'll continue to assume that I and my
consciousness are real rather than illusory.
--
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 4:47:59?PM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:56:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58?AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:OK, thanks. The basic explanation is sort of what I assumed,
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and >> >> >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass it,
as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
based on the words alone. But no, I never encountered the
term *as a term*; I assume it's from philosophy.
As for the question regarding other species, the original
claim was nonspecific (other than "our"), and taken at face
value would seem to include all species with DNA which are
subject to selection. Either that, or the assumption was
that we're "special", a la "humans are different from
animals". Yeah, it was a bit snarky, but overgeneralizations
and sweeping universal claims bring that out in me.
Fair enough, it can be read like this. I parsed it the other way round:
there is a trait that (at least) humans have. It is universal at least
in our species, and in varying degrees in others. This then raises
the question if it is an adaptive trait that has been selected for, or
maybe was an adaptive trait in our evolutionary past but is not any longer, >or is not increasing chances of reproductive success at all, and therefore >has different explanations.
He opts for 1), and that seems to be mainstream in biology (in my
experience at least, it's mainly philosophers who would treat it, and >consciousness in general, as a mere epiphenomenon, like the whislte
on the train that does not play a role in moving it)
On 2/4/24 10:02 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-02-04 16:26:41 +0000, erik simpson said:
On 2/3/24 11:48 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 23:02:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>"Philosophy" is easier to bullshit. Remember the Sokol hoax?
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 17:40:49 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Whatever floats your boat;oes it help sequoias? Or bacteria?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in >>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self >>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the >>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how >>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self >>>>>>>>>> models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some >>>>>>>>>> sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things. >>>>>>>>>
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us >>>>>>>> in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a >>>>>>> question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Oh. I think I understand now. It's too ambiguous, is that it? I should >>>>> have said "pass along our genes to future generations".
It seems to me to be essentially navel-gazing, since the
idea that the "self" is an illusion is itself an illusion,
promulgated by the very self which is asserted to be
illusory. IOW, how can an illusion determine the illusory
nature of a concept?
This is why, IMHO, philosophy, while a somewhat interesting
way to pass a rainy afternoon or a late-night bull session
(liberally lubricated with beer), is useless for determining
reality.
Your complaint above is about pseudo-philosophy, not actual
philosophy. If John Wilkins was still posting to T.O., he might tell >>> you that, just as there is pseudo-science, both can be abused and
misused to make up conclusions to suit personal whims. My experience >>> is pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy are the stock-in-trade of
pseudo-skeptics.
Ontology and epistemology are what Feynman was talking about when he
said that knowing the names of birds doesn't tell you anything about
the nature of birds. Behe notwithstanding, they are what distinguish >>> astrology and Intelligent Design and stamp-collecting from science.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think I may remember it better than you do! Alan Sokal was not
attacking philosophy but postmodernism and social science (or social "science" as it is better called*), and published it in Social Text. His coauthor Jean Bricmont is a philosopher of science, and I doubt that he would wish to be associated with an attack on philosophy as such.
*"Any discipline with 'science' in its name is not a science."
Acknowledged. The "scare quote" referred to the Sokol's victims (postmeodernism, etc.), not more serious-minded thinkers.
Jack Sovalot <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> wrote:
Hemidactylus wrote:
and >>> so I'm assuming it's hard wired.Jack Sovalot <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> wrote:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
self. >>DNA was replicating long before the advent of nervous systems,
cortex, and a human (mis)perception of continuous and coherent
along >> the way, but the way it unfolds may have a bit more than aThe self may be something that arose by our evolution somewhere
tincture >> of social construction about it.
This self you speak of is highly derived and not fundamental.
Bacteria do just fine without it, though maybe bacteria association
influence our (mis)perception of self in how they modulate the gut
brain which in turn communicates with our noggin brain.
Thank you so much, Hemidactylus.
Yes, I'd read that shy mice will become gregarious if you move
bacteria into their guts from the guts of gregarious mice.
Fascinating.
The gut brain and influence of the microbiome is interesting, but I
put it at arms length, alongside newfound interest in Darwin’s root
brain and the so-called wood wide web in forest communities.
On 2/4/24 11:14 AM, Burkhard wrote:
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:53:00 PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:Fake anything is potentially dangerous, but I continue to believe that
On 2/4/24 10:02 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-02-04 16:26:41 +0000, erik simpson said:Acknowledged. The "scare quote" referred to the Sokol's victims
On 2/3/24 11:48 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 23:02:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> >>>>>> wrote:"Philosophy" is easier to bullshit. Remember the Sokol hoax?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 17:40:49 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Whatever floats your boat;oes it help sequoias? Or bacteria?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to >>>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self >>>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the >>>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how >>>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - >>>>>>>>>>>>> planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self >>>>>>>>>>>>> models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things. >>>>>>>>>>>>
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us >>>>>>>>>>> in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How >>>>>>>>>>> about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a >>>>>>>>>> question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Oh. I think I understand now. It's too ambiguous, is that it? I should >>>>>>>> have said "pass along our genes to future generations".
It seems to me to be essentially navel-gazing, since the
idea that the "self" is an illusion is itself an illusion,
promulgated by the very self which is asserted to be
illusory. IOW, how can an illusion determine the illusory
nature of a concept?
This is why, IMHO, philosophy, while a somewhat interesting
way to pass a rainy afternoon or a late-night bull session
(liberally lubricated with beer), is useless for determining
reality.
Your complaint above is about pseudo-philosophy, not actual
philosophy. If John Wilkins was still posting to T.O., he might tell >>>>>> you that, just as there is pseudo-science, both can be abused and
misused to make up conclusions to suit personal whims. My experience >>>>>> is pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy are the stock-in-trade of
pseudo-skeptics.
Ontology and epistemology are what Feynman was talking about when he >>>>>> said that knowing the names of birds doesn't tell you anything about >>>>>> the nature of birds. Behe notwithstanding, they are what distinguish >>>>>> astrology and Intelligent Design and stamp-collecting from science. >>>>>>
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think I may remember it better than you do! Alan Sokal was not
attacking philosophy but postmodernism and social science (or social
"science" as it is better called*), and published it in Social Text. His >>>> coauthor Jean Bricmont is a philosopher of science, and I doubt that he >>>> would wish to be associated with an attack on philosophy as such.
*"Any discipline with 'science' in its name is not a science."
(postmeodernism, etc.), not more serious-minded thinkers.
If only it were limited to philosophy and the social sciences - there at least
it causes little harm. But fake papers are now as common in the hard sciences
as they are there, and potentially with deadly consequences:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point
fake science is easier to recognize. I acknowledge that I have little experience or inclination to follow writing by philosophers. As an
undergrad I had to read some from Socrates (via Plato) through John
Dewey. I was exasperated with the wordiness (and perceived sophistry)
of it. I even had some feeling that Socrates may have deserved what he
got (not really). I do believe the misuse of AI is real danger.
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:53:00 PM UTC, erik simpson wrote:
On 2/4/24 10:02 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-02-04 16:26:41 +0000, erik simpson said:Acknowledged. The "scare quote" referred to the Sokol's victims
On 2/3/24 11:48 PM, jillery wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 23:02:14 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>"Philosophy" is easier to bullshit. Remember the Sokol hoax?
wrote:
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 17:40:49 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:Whatever floats your boat;oes it help sequoias? Or bacteria?
On Sat, 03 Feb 2024 09:35:33 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:replicate, >> and >> > so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
No answer.So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined andSince this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to >>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self >>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the >>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how >>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self >>>>>>>>>>>> models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some >>>>>>>>>>>> sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things. >>>>>>>>>>>
unexplained, BTW) "helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us >>>>>>>>>> in not becoming lion chow? Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
"Assertion"? You're right, I should have phrased my post as a >>>>>>>>> question.
"...assuming it's hard wired" is conceptually a question,
as is, to some extent, "may be illusory". But "it helps our
DNA replicate" is an assertion, justified (sort of) by your
succeeding rather vague claim.
Oh. I think I understand now. It's too ambiguous, is that it? I should >>>>>>> have said "pass along our genes to future generations".
It seems to me to be essentially navel-gazing, since the
idea that the "self" is an illusion is itself an illusion,
promulgated by the very self which is asserted to be
illusory. IOW, how can an illusion determine the illusory
nature of a concept?
This is why, IMHO, philosophy, while a somewhat interesting
way to pass a rainy afternoon or a late-night bull session
(liberally lubricated with beer), is useless for determining
reality.
Your complaint above is about pseudo-philosophy, not actual
philosophy. If John Wilkins was still posting to T.O., he might tell >>>>> you that, just as there is pseudo-science, both can be abused and
misused to make up conclusions to suit personal whims. My experience >>>>> is pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy are the stock-in-trade of
pseudo-skeptics.
Ontology and epistemology are what Feynman was talking about when he >>>>> said that knowing the names of birds doesn't tell you anything about >>>>> the nature of birds. Behe notwithstanding, they are what distinguish >>>>> astrology and Intelligent Design and stamp-collecting from science.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think I may remember it better than you do! Alan Sokal was not
attacking philosophy but postmodernism and social science (or social
"science" as it is better called*), and published it in Social Text. His >>> coauthor Jean Bricmont is a philosopher of science, and I doubt that he
would wish to be associated with an attack on philosophy as such.
*"Any discipline with 'science' in its name is not a science."
(postmeodernism, etc.), not more serious-minded thinkers.
If only it were limited to philosophy and the social sciences - there at least
it causes little harm. But fake papers are now as common in the hard sciences as they are there, and potentially with deadly consequences: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2024/feb/03/the-situation-has-become-appalling-fake-scientific-papers-push-research-credibility-to-crisis-point
On flip side was the overhyped âconceptual penisâ nonsense by Boghossian
and Lindsay. The original panic over pomo has mutated and metastasized into reactionary anti-wokeness moral panic and its capitalizing cottage
industry.
On 2024-02-05 13:10:04 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
[ … ]
On flip side was the overhyped âconceptual penisâ nonsense by Boghossian
and Lindsay. The original panic over pomo has mutated and metastasized into >> reactionary anti-wokeness moral panic and its capitalizing cottage
industry.
I can't understand any of that. Would you like to translate it into English?
On Sunday, February 4, 2024 at 6:23:01?PM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 04:24:54 -0800 (PST), the followingI think the claim is slightly different - though ultimately
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 4:47:59?PM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:Fair enough. But ISTM that there's a basic disconnect here,
On Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:56:21 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard
<b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:
On Saturday, February 3, 2024 at 2:27:58?AM UTC, Bob Casanova wrote:OK, thanks. The basic explanation is sort of what I assumed,
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 17:52:40 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Bob Casanova wrote:So that's how the "Self model" (still undefined and
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, and
so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Yes, the sense of self helps us avoid death, among other things.
unexplained, BTW)
It's such a familiar term that I too would have thought
it does not need a definition. It's simply the perception of
a unified self, and the ability to perceive yourself as
one - there is an "I" who is hearing, smelling and seeing
right now, and all these are integrated into a single
perception of reality. Unlike most robots today e.g.. It
includes also the perception that you body is yours, and separate
from others, and also with humans at least the
endurance of this self through time -
that the person who stupidly drank too much
yesterday causing a hangover was you, and that the
person who will have a hangover tomorrow if you
continue drinking is also you. It can include reflection about
inner states ("I" am in pain now) and with that also a
neural basis for moral reasoning ( I am not the type of person
who does this)
">helps our DNA replicate", by assisting us
in not becoming lion chow?
Among other things - though some of the key
advantages are coordination with conspecifics
(we can reason about the inner states of others) ,
long term planning (it will me "me" who draws the
pension I'm paying in now) and other more
complex cognitive functions. It allows e.g to identify
where in your body pain or a similar problem is, and
to direct help to that place
Doesn't explain whether it's
restricted to humans, though. Does it help jellyfish? How
about Yersina pestis?
The typical tests for this are mirror tests. It
probably comes in degrees, and where one draws the
boundary can be tricky - also because non-human animals
can't simply tell us how they feel about themselves. Some basic
bodily self-awareness is claimed even for plants, by some, but
The most demanding is the "mark test", which does
definitely require complex brains - other primates tend to pass it,
as do dolphins.
He may have assumed too much knowledge in the reader,
Your assertion seems a bit...ummm...unformed.
that's true. But I'm not sure why the question about jellyfish
and Yersina matters tbh. Almost all traits that increase an
organisms reproductive fitness are not shared across all species
after all.
based on the words alone. But no, I never encountered the
term *as a term*; I assume it's from philosophy.
As for the question regarding other species, the original
claim was nonspecific (other than "our"), and taken at face
value would seem to include all species with DNA which are
subject to selection. Either that, or the assumption was
that we're "special", a la "humans are different from
animals". Yeah, it was a bit snarky, but overgeneralizations
and sweeping universal claims bring that out in me.
Fair enough, it can be read like this. I parsed it the other way round:
there is a trait that (at least) humans have. It is universal at least
in our species, and in varying degrees in others. This then raises
the question if it is an adaptive trait that has been selected for, or
maybe was an adaptive trait in our evolutionary past but is not any longer, >> >or is not increasing chances of reproductive success at all, and therefore >> >has different explanations.
He opts for 1), and that seems to be mainstream in biology (in my
experience at least, it's mainly philosophers who would treat it, and
consciousness in general, as a mere epiphenomenon, like the whislte
on the train that does not play a role in moving it)
in that any claim that the self is illusory is being made by
a self-designated illusion, and is thus of zero value in
determining anything of substance; that is why I referred to
it as "navel-gazing". I can only operate on my perceptions,
which tell me that there's something unique to me which is
capable of observation, consideration and conclusion(s)
regarding events and objects in the physical world, and of
similar processes regarding that which cannot be observed
objectively but only experienced. I may be incorrect; we may
all exist in virtual reality a la The Matrix, but until and
unless I'm shown actual evidence that this is the case
(Agent Smith redraws my face to seal my mouth shut,
perhaps?) I'll continue to assume that I and my
consciousness are real rather than illusory.
--
I agree with you, the "illusion" notion of the self is problematic
for the reason you state - illusions are things "I-s" have, so where
is the entity that is hallucinating.
Historically, the target was the "homunculus theory" of the mind,
a.k.a "cartesian theatre". This model explained things like vision
as if we had a little homunculus in our head that looked at the
images that come through the eye, like someone in a theatre.
The problem with this is of course that it is question begging -
how doesthe homunculus in turn "see"? But it is a very
intuitive way to think about it, so theories that rejected this
"single entity in your brain" model argued that THAT was merely
an illusion.
More modern versions elaborate on this: there is no single part in
the brain where the "I" sits, so to speak. Rather, the brain
constantly edits our various sense inputs so that they form
a coherent whole (and not, e.g. like a movie where the sound is
out of synch with the mouth movement) , and the concept of "I"
or "self" comes as a side effect of this process of integration and editing >This does not mean that everything that we perceive is illusionary -
just edited to make sense (and we know of course all the experiments where the >brain "edits out" information that does not "fit", e.g. the famous
gorilla basketball experiment) What that means is that the "self" is not
a "thing" like a tree, rather it is the result of a process.
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution and the
Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And I've
recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution and the
Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand on
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", and
what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to believe it
"helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do that? Does it
help all DNA to replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias -
implying they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans
and others with some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution
and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand on
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", and
what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to believe it
"helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do that? Does it
help all DNA to replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias -
implying they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans
and others with some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution
and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
I think what you've done there is equated not being a self with not
existing.
Are you the same person now as you were when you were five?
Google Bard used to have opinions, but denies it now.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
"self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:Nope.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand on >>>>>>> it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", and
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, >>>>>>>> and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to believe it
"helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do that? Does it
help all DNA to replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias -
implying they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans >>>>>>> and others with some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of >>>>>> nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution
and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
I think what you've done there is equated not being a self with not
existing.
Nope. Is that relevant? if so, please explain the relevance
Are you the same person now as you were when you were five?
to the original question..
And that is relevant...how?
Google Bard used to have opinions, but denies it now.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
Nope. Is that relevant? if so, please explain the relevanceA Ship of Theseus deconstruction of the self concept? There are multiple selves and ideal selves as perceived.
to the original question..
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared......
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand on >>>>>>>> it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", and
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, >>>>>>>>> and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to believe it >>>>>>>> "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do that? Does it >>>>>>>> help all DNA to replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias -
implying they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans >>>>>>>> and others with some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of >>>>>>> nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution >>>>>> and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
I think what you've done there is equated not being a self with notNope.
existing.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self is
the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their whole lives without
an internal monologue). But it is possible to do all sorts of fairly
complex things without the "narrator" talking about them or even seeming
to notice them - driving home along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster
than the narrator can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of
music you know from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made
for the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak.
And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful illusion.
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
"self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects into question.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
"self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects >> into question.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to >>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of >>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for >>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a >>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal >>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality >>> nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
"broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared inIn addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
"self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
"The question is 'which is the real Riker?'" Such questions sound philosophically complex, but I think that is an artifact of our language.
Our language, obviously, developed in a situation in which such transplantings of the "self" do not occur, so we understandably lack
words to cover all the possible cases. It therefore seems perplexing to figure out which is the *real* Riker. But if such technologies existed in
the non-fictional world, we would doubtless develop a vocabulary to cover such events. There'd be no deep mystery in the "philosophy of identity" because we'd have separate words for the separate cases.
On Sunday, February 11, 2024 at 10:03:07 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
"broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob CasanovaIn addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared
in > talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the
"Self model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with
the idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly
how does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
smell of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
self with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
exists and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory
self is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of
one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there
"running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of
the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people
who get by their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it
is possible to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the
"narrator" talking about them or even seeming to notice them -
driving home along a familiar route while thinking about something
unrelated, making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than
the narrator can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of
music you know from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in
charge of a decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the
decision is being made for the reasons the "narrator" articulates
or whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already
made in the dark, so to speak. And yet the feeling that one's self
simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is not easy to
shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful illusion.
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into
a different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind
of immortality nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
the one back on the ship?
"The question is 'which is the real Riker?'" Such questions sound philosophically complex, but I think that is an artifact of our
language. Our language, obviously, developed in a situation in which
such transplantings of the "self" do not occur, so we understandably
lack words to cover all the possible cases. It therefore seems
perplexing to figure out which is the *real* Riker. But if such
technologies existed in the non-fictional world, we would doubtless
develop a vocabulary to cover such events. There'd be no deep mystery
in the "philosophy of identity" because we'd have separate words for
the separate cases.
DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:A yes Davidson’s swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects >>> into question.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self >>>>> with not > >existing.
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books... >>>>>>>>>
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to >>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of >>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists >>>>> and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self >>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for >>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their >>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do >>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's >>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a >>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet >>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal >>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups' >>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different >>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality >>>> nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet, >>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is >>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was >>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether >>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate,
and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self
models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with some
sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of
nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution
and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted
by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model",
and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to
believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do
that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or
is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of
"self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell
of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for
a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a
rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal
monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality
nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:If the premise is that the self *must* be continuous and
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appearedA Ship of Theseus deconstruction of the self concept? There are multiple >selves and ideal selves as perceived. What one wants to become gets off >track. What one was may induce sense of loss or regret .Gaps between ideal >and actual can be depressive per derailment literature.
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:Nope.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot"
<hee-pwakofum@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand on >>>>>>>> it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", and
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA replicate, >>>>>>>>> and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to believe it >>>>>>>> "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do that? Does it >>>>>>>> help all DNA to replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias -
implying they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans >>>>>>>> and others with some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell of >>>>>>> nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an illusion. And
I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite : Evolution >>>>>> and the Modular Mind" by Robert Kurzban. He too mentions the
illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
I think what you've done there is equated not being a self with not
existing.
Nope. Is that relevant? if so, please explain the relevance
Are you the same person now as you were when you were five?
to the original question..
Yet is there a truly coherent self beyond the perception of it? Skepticism
is warranted no? We do not see the processes outside awareness.
Not sure either.And that is relevant...how?
Google Bard used to have opinions, but denies it now.
DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist?
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:A yes Davidsons swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects >>> into question.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self >>>>> with not > >existing.
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books... >>>>>>>>>
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to >>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of >>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists >>>>> and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self >>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for >>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their >>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do >>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's >>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a >>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet >>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal >>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups' >>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different >>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality >>>> nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet, >>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is >>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was >>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether >>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it'
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:A yes Davidsons swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to >>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria,
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of >>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists
and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for >>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their
whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do
all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking
about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a
familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from
memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's
not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the
reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a >>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet
the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal >>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups'
of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different
body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality >>> nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet,
and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is
one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the
ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both
are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was
going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether
you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
into question.
you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie
would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
On 2/12/24 8:55 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 18:35:21 +0000, the following appearedI drink, therefore I am?
in talk.origins, posted by *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid>:
DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:"Would you like to buy us another round, Descartes?"
On 2024-02-11 9:36 AM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:Does Riker 1 (or ur-Riker) have continuity of experience or cease to exist? >>>
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:They are both 'real' Rikers. Any questions concerning it (what is 'it' >>>> you ask?: an extended middle finger) could be settled by a vote. A tie >>>> would be settled by calling up a third Riker from the buffers.
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:A yes Davidsons swampman. Kinda calls transhumanist immortality projects >>>>> into question.
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a self >>>>>>> with not > >existing.
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in >>>>>>>>>> talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books... >>>>>>>>>>>
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins, posted >>>>>>>>>>>>> by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to expand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self model", >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what leads you (or whoever came up with the idea) to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how does it do >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that? Does it help all DNA to replicate - planaria, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have Self models? Or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is it restricted to humans and others with some sense of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "self"?
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong smell >>>>>>>>>>>>> of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a >>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood. >>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole >>>>>>> body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self exists >>>>>>> and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self >>>>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running >>>>>>> the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time for >>>>>>> a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by their >>>>>>> whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible to do >>>>>>> all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator" talking >>>>>>> about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home along a >>>>>>> familiar route while thinking about something unrelated, making
tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can >>>>>>> articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know from >>>>>>> memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, it's >>>>>>> not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for the >>>>>>> reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply providing a >>>>>>> rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to speak. And yet >>>>>>> the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal >>>>>>> monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful >>>>>>> illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to >>>>>> death.
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing 'backups' >>>>>> of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a different >>>>>> body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of immortality >>>>>> nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a planet, >>>>>> and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with the
transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so there is >>>>>> one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and another on the >>>>>> ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker? perhaps they both >>>>>> are. But if you were him and you got a phone call telling you this was >>>>>> going to happen, would you go through with it? Would you wonder whether >>>>>> you would be the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship? >>>>>>
"No, I think not."
And we all know what happens next...
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
smell of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
self with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
exists and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
a fairly powerful illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a >>continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to >>death.
holds that view. Strawman?
All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a >>different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of >>immortality nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
the one back on the ship?
I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
nothing in physical reality.
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:Do you know of any educated, sane adult who actually holds
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books...
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024
14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self
model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the
idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how
does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have
Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with
some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
smell of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
self with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
exists and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self
is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible
to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator
can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision,
it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
a fairly powerful illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a >>>continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to >>>death.
holds that view. Strawman?
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doingAll interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a >>>different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of >>>immortality nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call >>>telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
the one back on the ship?
I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
nothing in physical reality.
They are not presented as evidence, they are a thought experiment. But
how can you be so certain?
What about the multi-universe quantum
theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote:
Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> writes:The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared inThey are not presented as evidence, they are a thought
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>:
"broger...@gmail.com" <brogers31751@gmail.com> writes:I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who actually
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish books... >>>>>>>>>
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb 2024 >>>>>>>>>>> 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in > talk.origins,
posted by "Jack Sovalot" > <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to >>>>>>>>>>>> expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the "Self >>>>>>>>>>>> model", and what leads you (or whoever came up with the >>>>>>>>>>>> idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"? Exactly how >>>>>>>>>>>> does it do that? Does it help all DNA to replicate -
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA >>>>>>>>>>>>> replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying they all have >>>>>>>>>>>> Self models? Or is it restricted to humans and others with >>>>>>>>>>>> some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong >>>>>>>>>>> smell of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a >>>>>>>>>> Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
self with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the whole
body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the self
exists and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory self >>>>> is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of one's
internal monologue, and that that narrator is always there "running
the show." It certainly feels that way, at least a lot of the time
for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15% of people who get by
their whole lives without an internal monologue). But it is possible >>>>> to do all sorts of fairly complex things without the "narrator"
talking about them or even seeming to notice them - driving home
along a familiar route while thinking about something unrelated,
making tactical decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator >>>>> can articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a decision, >>>>> it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is being made for
the reasons the "narrator" articulates or whether he is simply
providing a rationale for decision already made in the dark, so to
speak. And yet the feeling that one's self simply *is* the narrator
of one's internal monologue is not easy to shake - so I'd say it is
a fairly powerful illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is a
continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from birth to
death.
holds that view. Strawman?
All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy them. But
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored into a >>>> different body, which raises the question of whether that is a kind of >>>> immortality nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault with
the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies him, so
there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the ground, and
another on the ship. So the question is, which is the real Riker?
perhaps they both are. But if you were him and you got a phone call
telling you this was going to happen, would you go through with it?
Would you wonder whether you would be the one left on the planet, or
the one back on the ship?
I don't make the mistake of imagining that they constitute any sort of
evidence of anything other than a fertile imagination; certainly
nothing in physical reality.
experiment. But
how can you be so certain? What about the multi-universe quantum
theories? If the universe splits every time there is some quantum
diversion then there ought to be multiple slightly different selves.
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different that
many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as many interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians.
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 11:53:09 AM UTC-5, Richmond wrote:
erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> writes:word "theory" in that article; it's pretty clear if you read it, that
On 2/13/24 1:41 AM, Richmond wrote: > Bob Casanova
<nos...@buzz.off> writes:
The "many worlds" idea associated with Hugh Everett is not a
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:00:03 +0000, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"broger...@gmail.com" <broger...@gmail.com> writes:I can't imagine anyone over the (mental) age of twelve who
On Saturday, February 10, 2024 at 11:43:07?PM UTC-5, Bob
Casanova wrote: > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 16:38:28 +0000, the
following appeared in > talk.origins, posted by Richmond
<dnom...@gmx.com>:
...... > >I think what you've done there is equated not being a
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> writes:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 12:37:06 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Richmond <dnom...@gmx.com>:
"Jack Sovalot" <hee-pw...@jack.sovalot> writes:Amazing how many illusions have opinions and publish
erik simpson wrote:
On 2/2/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote: > On Fri, 02 Feb
2024 14:45:11 GMT, the following appeared in >
talk.origins, posted by "Jack Sovalot" >
<hee-pw...@jack.sovalot>:
Since this didn't follow any thread I've seen, care to
The Self model may be illusory, but it helps our DNA
replicate, and so I'm assuming it's hard wired.
expand on it a bit? For instance, what exactly is the
"Self model", and what leads you (or whoever came up
with the idea) to believe it "helps our DNA replicate"?
Exactly how does it do that? Does it help all DNA to
replicate - planaria, earthworms, sequoias - implying
they all have Self models? Or is it restricted to humans
and others with some sense of "self"?
Are you sure you want to open this door? There's a strong
smell of nuts coming from it.
LOL! Not really. Hume suggested that the self is an
illusion. And I've recently read "Why Everyone (Else) Is a
Hypocrite : Evolution and the Modular Mind" by Robert
Kurzban. He too mentions the illusion of self.
There is a book called "The Self Illusion" by Bruce Hood.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13384559
books...
self with not > >existing.
Nope.
I agree with you. As long as you identify the self with the
whole body, including the brain, then there's no doubt that the
self exists and that you are yourself.
I think that what people mean when they talk about the illusory
self is the natural feeling that one's self is the narrator of
one's internal monologue, and that that narrator is always
there "running the show." It certainly feels that way, at least
a lot of the time for a lot of people (leaving aside the 10-15%
of people who get by their whole lives without an internal
monologue). But it is possible to do all sorts of fairly
complex things without the "narrator" talking about them or
even seeming to notice them - driving home along a familiar
route while thinking about something unrelated, making tactical
decisions in a tennis match faster than the narrator can
articulate reasons for them, playing a piece of music you know
from memory. Even when the "narrator" feels in charge of a
decision, it's not necessarily clear whether the decision is
being made for the reasons the "narrator" articulates or
whether he is simply providing a rationale for decision already
made in the dark, so to speak. And yet the feeling that one's
self simply *is* the narrator of one's internal monologue is
not easy to shake - so I'd say it is a fairly powerful
illusion.
In addition to these things, there is the idea that the self is
a continuous and consistent self, through day to day, and from
birth to death.
actually holds that view. Strawman?
All interesting questions, and as a F&SF aficionado I enjoy
There are plenty of sci-fi stories however about people doing
'backups' of their minds, and then those backups being restored
into a different body, which raises the question of whether that
is a kind of immortality nor not.
In an episode of Star Trek, Commander Riker is beamed down to a
planet, and when it comes to beam him up again there is a fault
with the transporter and instead of transporting him it copies
him, so there is one Riker left stranded (for years) on the
ground, and another on the ship. So the question is, which is
the real Riker? perhaps they both are. But if you were him and
you got a phone call telling you this was going to happen, would
you go through with it? Would you wonder whether you would be
the one left on the planet, or the one back on the ship?
them. But I don't make the mistake of imagining that they
constitute any sort of evidence of anything other than a fertile
imagination; certainly nothing in physical reality. >> >> They
are not presented as evidence, they are a thought >> >>
experiment. But >> >> how can you be so certain? What about the
multi-universe quantum >> >> theories? If the universe splits
every time there is some quantum >> >> diversion then there ought
to be multiple slightly different selves. >> >>
https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/the-many-worlds-theory/
theory. It's an "interpretation" of what QM "means", no different
that many such interpretations. It's been suggested there are as
many interpretations as there are quantum mechanicians. >> Why is
it not a theory? It is called a theory in Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02602-8 Don't focus on the
they are treating "many worlds" as one of several possible
interpretations of quantum mechanics, rather than as a theory that
makes different predictions than those of, say, the Copenhagen interpretation.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 376 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 26:21:45 |
| Calls: | 8,036 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 13,034 |
| Messages: | 5,829,398 |