An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
pyluyten
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:08 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by pyluyten »

Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:19 am
DNS wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:11 am Since you said you want a debate . . .
Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:50 pm There is just one thing conditioning another, with no receiver of the kamma. Same as a candle might be used to light another candle. There is no self of a candle there, nobody to receive the lighting. Yet, it is the lighting of the candle happening, even without a self of the candle to receive it. There is just the wax of the candle, the rope of the candle, the oxigen, the motion of the other candle, etc. - with no-one to receive the lighting, just a conditioned process.
If there is no receiver of kamma, why would anyone do wholesome actions? If one did wholesome actions how would the kamma-vipaka take place, who gets it?

If there is a candle lighting another, then the flame is the self, not a permanent self, but an impermanent self?

If there is no self in a computer, why would the computer, using it's anti-virus, do efforts in eliminating viruses from it ?
exactly, there is a Self in a computer because we define what is a computer. To work, there needs to be the processor, the motherboard, the input device, the screen. And obviously the electricity, and the ability to process information. Apart from the hardware, there needs to be the firmware, then the software. A computer is not just a mixed bag of random components. The processor is compatible with the motherboard, the drivers do recognize the devices, and so on.

Now, what about humans. First, as the computer, the human body is not just a mere assembly of legs and arms and heart ; rather it is consistent, each piece playing nicely with the others, also it does processes information, has a history (a doctor would be able to analyze part of this history). Ok this self is changing, as any other phenomena - who said Self has to be eternal to be?

Then there is the second, most important, point. As vegetables or trees, as birds or bacteria, the human body has the capability to reproduce itself. So we struggle, adapt to our environment, and survive, then we create other self, partly similar to us, partly different. (And like trees we also impact the environment.)

Since cells are changing, we are eating, defecating, it might be argued it is not so much the current set of atoms that defines someone. In that opinion, the self is the set of features, capabilities. This self is changing, but we can provide definitions of what is a human being, so it IS a human being. But it might also be argued the self is simply the set of cells, and that's all, and since this definition is more clear and simple, then i suggest to adopt this one.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 »

pyluyten wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:26 pm Now, what about humans. First, as the computer, the human body is not just a mere assembly of legs and arms and heart ; rather it is consistent, each piece playing nicely with the others, also it does processes information, has a history (a doctor would be able to analyze part of this history). Ok this self is changing, as any other phenomena - who said Self has to be eternal to be?
According to your definition of "self", it means computers too have a self. As you said 1 paragraph before the one quoted here, computers too are consistent, the drivers have to be compatible with the software, etc. All parts play nicely with the other, they can process information, they have a history, therefore they have an ever changing self according to your definition. Instead of calling them machines made out of different parts, from now on we need to call them an ever-changing self according to your deffinition.

But what is the point of changing a commonly established understanding of something, with another deffinition for it ?

For example water is made out of oxigen and hidrogen, therefore it is a self. Everything that contains water is a self from now on, because I changed the definition. Therefore, I proved there is a self, by proving that water is made out of oxigen and hidrogen.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:25 pm
Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:49 am So the argument is that the existence of consciousness in itself implies a self, that it can not exist without a self ? There is this assumption that there must be a self beneath, to which this consciousness belongs to.
No, that's not the argument. How's your reading of Vallicella's articles coming along?
Due to your insistence, I have read finally read it.

Point 1:
An Operator-Shift Fallacy
The spaggete monster argument. It is true that you can never prove the non-existence of the spaggete monster. Similary, a bushman seeing a car for the first time might believe it is pushed by an elephant spirit or a tiger spirit. Even if you can show the bushman that cars do not work like that, it is impossible to prove that cars actually work by having an elephant spirit or a tiger spirit pushing them. But it is rather that the one claiming that they are pushed by a tiger force should try to prove the existence of this tiger spirit, not ask from other to prove that it doesn't exist.

Point 2:
A Transcendental Argument
Ridiculous argument. He claims that since there is a serch going on, we should ask who is doing the search and the answer is that a self is doing a search, otherwise the search could not be possible. :juggling: Then this means there is a self inside the computer when he is searching for viruses or automatically searching for updates. How could the antivirus search for viruses or search for updates if there is no self inside the computer to do the searching ?

Point 3:
A Dogmatic Assumption
This is a repeat of point 1 and also fighting a stawman, or rather is fighting with Harris wrong understanding of buddhism, regarding how the non-existence of a self is understood through "meditating" (whatever that might mean) and after not being able to experience any self, conclude that there is no self.

Rather, the process is entirely different. There are hundreds of cases of people dropping self view (attaining stream entry) in the suttas, and none did it through Harris method. Rather, the process is like this: Imagine againt that there are some bushman seeing a car for the first time and believeing it is pushed by a tiger spirit. What Harris would do here is to tell the bushmen to show the tiger spirit and, if they are unable to, then conclude that there is no tiger spirit.

The actual way to go about this is to show how the car works in detail. Take the bushmen, show him the engine, explain to him how every little piece of it works, then he will see that it simply works due to the engine, not through being pushed by a tiger spirit. If the bushman will know how the car works, just like modern humans do, will he ever be perplexed about a tiger force pushing the car ? Were you, Sam Vera, ever inwardly perplexed about tiger forces or bird spirits or evil bananas pushing cars foreward, and questioning this idea about cars moving thanks to the engine ? When was the last time you felt inwardly perplexed about that ?

Point 4:
The Diachronic Unity of Consciousness
Paragraph 1: If you try searching for the tiger spirit pushing the car and do not find it anywhere within it's parts, like the electromotor being the tiger spirit, etc. - does not mean you proved there is no tiger spirit. True, again it's the classic spaggete monster defense, used for the 3rd time in the paper.

Paragraph 2: Again, the use of the second argument (the ridiculous one), with a small little new one added at the end. We have the "if there were no self, how could ability to process information happen ?" - computers too have ability to process. How can they search for viruses and updates, do complicated stuff by themselves etc. - if there is no self to do this all ?

As for the "is not merely a succession of conscious states, but also a consciousness of their succession in one and the same conscious subject. Without the consciousness of succession, without the retention of the earlier states in the present state, no conclusion could be arrived at." = when the consciousness about their succesion appears, it appears in a single moment. It is just another piece of the domino string, another succession of conscious states changing all the time. The existence of the element of memory + ability to process makes it possible for the appearence in that moment of such a particular conscious state. In the same way, in a computer there might appear a window on the screen that is an analysis of actions done in the past. For example a window with 12 viruses found might appear, as a result of a 10 hour virus search. Is it correct to say that since this particular window that popped in a particular second - takes into account information gathered in the past by other actions, since it represents a continuity - then this means the computer has a self ???

Paragraph 3: Same argument as paragraph 2. (the ridiculous one)

Paragraph 4: Same argument as paragraph 2. (the ridiculous one)

I find the paper to be pretty slim. I've seen much better attempts from people here on this forum than these 2 arguments about "the spagghete monster defense" + the ridiculous one. I've seen stuff much, much smarter here on this forum.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7627
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara »

Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:39 pm Due to your insistence, I have read finally read it.
Excellent!
The spaggete monster argument. It is true that you can never prove the non-existence of the spaggete monster.
Right, well done for reading it, but the next step is that you understand it. The spaghetti monster, along with Russell's celestial tea-pot and similar tropes, is a possible object of experience, rather than a subject of experience.
pyluyten
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:08 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by pyluyten »

Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 3:06 pm
pyluyten wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:26 pm Now, what about humans. First, as the computer, the human body is not just a mere assembly of legs and arms and heart ; rather it is consistent, each piece playing nicely with the others, also it does processes information, has a history (a doctor would be able to analyze part of this history). Ok this self is changing, as any other phenomena - who said Self has to be eternal to be?
According to your definition of "self", it means computers too have a self. As you said 1 paragraph before the one quoted here, computers too are consistent, the drivers have to be compatible with the software, etc. All parts play nicely with the other, they can process information, they have a history, therefore they have an ever changing self according to your definition. Instead of calling them machines made out of different parts, from now on we need to call them an ever-changing self according to your deffinition.

But what is the point of changing a commonly established understanding of something, with another deffinition for it ?

For example water is made out of oxigen and hidrogen, therefore it is a self. Everything that contains water is a self from now on, because I changed the definition. Therefore, I proved there is a self, by proving that water is made out of oxigen and hidrogen.
This is why i say there are two selfs.

The large definition is a "consistent set", so it's almost like saying a self is "something". But this something has to make sense, so why not, it's close to "essence" ; it's worth describing this view because several traditions have this definition of Self.

But as i just wrote above, i agree this definition is large and will not help your debate. So, the second definition is "life", ie a consistent set that does reproduce itself. So the "ever changing" somewhat remains, but not totally. The DNA remains as is your whole life. if you lose an arm you lose it for your whole life. If you live something very strong past 4 years you will remember it your whole life. And so on. This self is not a soul but it correspond to a reality we can measure and experiment. This self is known by science, actually it's true nature was discovered by science.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 13647
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by DNS »

Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:19 am If there is no self in a computer, why would the computer, using it's anti-virus, do efforts in eliminating viruses from it ? Why would the computer also do efforts not to lose data, not to get over heated etc. ? Is there a self of a computer thinking about it's future, doing present kamma so as to benefit in the future, or benefiting in the present because of it's past kamma ?
The computer removes viruses because it is programmed to do that. A computer stays on because it is commanded to do so until a human shuts it off. A sentient being has an instinct for survival, a desire for survival. A computer has no such survival instinct; it only does what it is programmed to do.
And which one of these 30 selfs is the self of the candle ? What makes self nr 5 or self nr 19 be "the self of THIS candle, my self" any different than the self of another candle from Uzbekistan ? A self can only be permanent. If one can says "I have 30 selfs, one died yesterday another one popped up today" - then what makes these 30 selfs "mine", what makes them differents in this respect than the self of another person from Uzbekistan ?
That's pretty good and I of course agree, but I imagine a nihilist-atheist and/or an eternalist might still say something like, "you are still referring to some same continuation of something."
User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 2211
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by No_Mind »

Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:04 pm It's actually the second time. It has been done here before, but why change a catchy title ? https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/an ... forum/7387

As a responso to recent discussions about self existing or not that happened in the lounge, I propose all who believe a self exist or that a self might exist a challange: Let’s do something super unique, something that has never been done on a buddhist forum. It is done countless times in the suttas, but it has yet to be done on a buddhist forum:

Let’s debated the problem itself, not weather Buddha had this opinion or that opinion about it. Let’s just debate the problem itself. Where is this self that you believe might exist hiding ? Is the body yourself ? Nope, cause it is changing. It was in one way when you were little. It didn’t even exist before. The body that you have now is different than the one that existed when you were a baby.

Most people can easily see their body is not their self because of this. They then go to believe “it is a self that is observing all of this. The self is the thing observing it all”. When questioned even further, they either believe consciousness is the self or that the aggregates as a whole somehow make a self. These are the 2 main ideas that the mind will jump towards next.

If anyone believs there might be a self hinding somewhere, that the human is not as selfless as a computer, etc. - then present your arguments. Say what is on your mind. We see this happening all the time in the suttas, it’s the natural thing to do when hearing about these no-self teachings. And yet, to my knowledge, it has never been done on a buddhist forum in so many years.

If you believe a self might exist, then bring your argument to the table.
You said to forget what opinion Buddha had and present our own. I present my Hin-Budd understanding.

We are a bunch of concentric sheaths.

Annamaya Kosha - The physical body (eats, breathes, sleeps, excretes).
Pranayama Kosha - Life force inside the physical body.
Manomaya Kosha - Mind is inside the life force.
Vijnanamaya Kosha - Awareness is inside the mind.
Anandamaya Kosha - Bliss is inside awareness.
The undying, unchanging, eternal soul is inside bliss. The five Koshas or sheaths are us and inside them all is atman.

from Taittiriya Upanishad

Image

Buddha meant the body is not self, the mind is not self .. he never said there is no self at all. He said what is commonly mistaken as me, myself, I is not the self. He taught us to let the "I-ness" related to Annamaya Kosha (the physical body and mind) to go .. I am male, I want food, I want to sleep .. these kind of thoughts must cease because the Annamaya Kosha is an illusory self and mistaken as the atman.

This separation of Annamaya Kosha (believing it to be the self) from the atman is only possible by deep meditation and living a virtuous and simple life.

He has been widely misunderstood/misinterpreted for 2000 years. If there is no atman how can there be rebirth? It is just not possible to reconcile no atman with rebirth (flame or any other analogy notwithstanding). No eternal atman means no rebirth. If you want to call it citta .. fine .. but it is eternal.

:namaste:
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:13 pm
The spaggete monster argument. It is true that you can never prove the non-existence of the spaggete monster.
Right, well done for reading it, but the next step is that you understand it. The spaghetti monster, along with Russell's celestial tea-pot and similar tropes, is a possible object of experience, rather than a subject of experience.
How about you being an object of experience for the spagghete monster. :tongue:

It doesn't matter if you say "this invisible thing is an object of experience or a subject of experience" - you need to show some evidence for it. How do I know there is a self that is a subject of experience and not an evil banana magician, playing a huge trick on everything, that is down there below ? Provide evidence for the evil-banana or the self or whatever you feel might be hiding somewhere. Otherwise, it's just an imaginary thing.

The evidence does not need to be a direct experience of it, it can be also showed through means of inference. For example, the fact that the world is round was initially found through means of inference from different informations, they could not travel to space to take a picture of it back then. And as a matter of fact, the belief that there is or might be a self that everybody naturally has is due to an inference. But I see people here have avoided answering my question regarding this, despite me not avoiding any questions.

As for not reading the paper, I expected some postmodern gibberish the moment I saw the word "transcedental", but thankfully it was not that. It was a honest guy trying to make a real argument.
The computer removes viruses because it is programmed to do that. A computer stays on because it is commanded to do so until a human shuts it off. A sentient being has an instinct for survival, a desire for survival. A computer has no such survival instinct; it only does what it is programmed to do.
The human is also programmed to do stuff. It is programmed to survive, it is programmed to chase pleasant feelings and avoid unpleasant feelings. Through this programming that exists inside a human (to chase pleasant feelings and avoid negative ones), giving specific conditions, it can get enlightened. Same as a computer, giving favorable conditions (internet connection, updates avaliable) - it can perfect itself and go towards what it is programmed to do by algorithms.

Also, same as the computer can be conditioned by a human to shut down, in the same way a human can be conditioned by another human to shut down. Everything a living organism does is conditioned by one thing or another, same as all a computer does is conditioned by one thing or another. Even when a human goes to the toilet for example, it is first conditioned by specific factors arising, it does not go there out of the blue with no reason. Everything a human does is conditioned by algorhitms (ADN, mental tendencies, etc.)
That's pretty good and I of course agree, but I imagine a nihilist-atheist and/or an eternalist might still say something like, "you are still referring to some same continuation of something."
Same as the image displayed right now on the computer is a continuation of something. It is a continuation of pressing the "sing in" button, then pressing the "reply" button, etc.
But as i just wrote above, i agree this definition is large and will not help your debate. So, the second definition is "life", ie a consistent set that does reproduce itself. So the "ever changing" somewhat remains, but not totally. The DNA remains as is your whole life. if you lose an arm you lose it for your whole life. If you live something very strong past 4 years you will remember it your whole life. And so on. This self is not a soul but it correspond to a reality we can measure and experiment. This self is known by science, actually it's true nature was discovered by science.
About the first part: Nothing remains the same, not even memory. As a matter of fact, eye witnessing is considered almost useless in trials because memories actually change a lot more than people think. As for the rest of your body remaining intact despite losing an arm, that rest of the body will get eaten by worms and even the skeleton will desintegrate eventually.

As for "the self is not a soul but it corresponds to a reality we can measure and experiment" - what do you mean by that ?
auto
Posts: 1993
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by auto »

Circle5 wrote: Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:50 pm Yes that is an argument that can be made. And it is good to see arguments like that so that the topic can start going.

My answer to such and argument would be: There is just one thing conditioning another, with no receiver of the kamma. Same as a candle might be used to light another candle. There is no self of a candle there, nobody to receive the lighting. Yet, it is the lighting of the candle happening, even without a self of the candle to receive it. There is just the wax of the candle, the rope of the candle, the oxigen, the motion of the other candle, etc. - with no-one to receive the lighting, just a conditioned process.

But arguments about a self existing or not generally go in another direction, the direction that the STC thread took. When people are questioned about why do they believe a self might exist, it all comes down to a feeling. If that feeling would not be there, their opinion would not be the same. That opinion is based on a specific feeling.

Every single person who believes a self might exist, when he is questioned about why does he have that opinion, it always comes down to a specific feeling. It is on that feeling that his opinion is based upon.
Candle light is little particles, or may i say selves, it isn't the fire element. By lighting a candle you release countless beings from a candle. Fire destroyes lower worlds and beings get released from bondage.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 »

No_Mind wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:48 pm
You said to forget what opinion Buddha had and present our own. I present my Hin-Budd understanding.

We are a bunch of concentric sheaths.

Annamaya Kosha - The physical body (eats, breathes, sleeps, excretes).
Pranayama Kosha - Life force inside the physical body.
Manomaya Kosha - Mind is inside the life force.
Vijnanamaya Kosha - Awareness is inside the mind.
Anandamaya Kosha - Bliss is inside awareness.
The undying, unchanging, eternal soul is inside bliss. The five Koshas or sheaths are us and inside them all is atman.

from Taittiriya Upanishad
Oh boy, but you forgot so many circles out of the picture. You forgot the evil banana circle. You forgot the life-force inside the evil banana. You forgot the bliss inside the happy invisible monkey, and so many more. Why 7 circles ? Because it's a lucky number ? Why not 777 circles, to be even more lucky ?

This is like a bunch of bushman debating the spirit pushing cars. One might say there is an elephant spirit. Another might say it is a tiger spirit. Another one will come and say that the tiger is big, that it is actually blue, that is is a happy tiger not a sad tiger, that it is a wise tiger not a stupid one, etc. etc. etc. Same as people can say there is a god and that good is good or bad, that it is either an old man with a beard or a ball of light or something, etc.

First, establish weather there is a tiger spirit or not. Saying it's a happy tiger spirit that is also wise and benevolent does not prove it's existence.
He has been widely misunderstood/misinterpreted for 2000 years. If there is no atman how can there be rebirth? It is just not possible to reconcile no atman with rebirth (flame or any other analogy notwithstanding). No eternal atman means no rebirth. If you want to call it citta .. fine .. but it is eternal.
There is an old famous ship that is still sailing (I can't remember the name, DNS posted in another topic). Every piece of it has been changed over time. Is it the same ship, or is it a different ship ? Well, it's neither the same neither different, same as with rebirth. As a matter of fact, No-Mind of today is neither the same neither different than No-Mind when he was a baby. It's not even the same as No-Mind from 8 years ago, since every cell in a human changes every 8 years if I am not mistaken.

Where is this eternal atman that you feel exist ? The argument you seem to be making for it is that since there is memory, since there is condinuation of some sort, there must be an atman. But there is memory and continuation in a computer too.

PS: Will somebody dare to answer the only question I made here ? The one about: why do you have the opinion that there is a self or might be a self. Why this opinion and not a totally different opinion ? If you think a little about what makes you have this opinion, you will come down to the same line of inference, to the same argument.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7627
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara »

Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:36 pm It doesn't matter if you say "this invisible thing is an object of experience or a subject of experience" - you need to show some evidence for it.
I'll show you some evidence for it as soon as you show me some evidence that you understand the article.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:53 pm
Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:36 pm It doesn't matter if you say "this invisible thing is an object of experience or a subject of experience" - you need to show some evidence for it.
I'll show you some evidence for it as soon as you show me some evidence that you understand the article.
I think you should show some evidence that you understood my reply to the article. Maybe try a re-read. If you feel there is something I left out of the article and did not adress, please point it out to me.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 7627
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara »

Circle5 wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:59 pm
I think you should show some evidence that you understood my reply to the article. Maybe try a re-read. If you feel there is something I left out of the article and did not adress, please point it out to me.
You want me to show you evidence that I have understood your reply to be evidence of a lack of understanding? Circle5, that's not a fair distribution of labour as far as understanding is concerned.
User avatar
Circle5
Posts: 945
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:10 pm You want me to show you evidence that I have understood your reply to be evidence of a lack of understanding? Circle5, that's not a fair distribution of labour as far as understanding is concerned.
You've asked me to read the article and adress the arguments presented in it. I have did so in an intelectually honest way and I have not left out even a single argument made in it.

If you feel there is an argument of mine that is incorrect, you should point which one of them and try to show why it is incorrect, in order to maintain the same level of honesty in the discussion as I have done. That is of course if you are interested in a honest discussion, which is up to you.

Answering all of than with "you understood nothing, go re-read the article, bye bye" is not the way I have responded to you before. If you respond like that to a person, do not expect any better in return.
pyluyten
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:08 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by pyluyten »

Circle5 wrote: [...]

The human is also programmed to do stuff. It is programmed to survive, it is programmed to chase pleasant feelings and avoid unpleasant feelings. Through this programming that exists inside a human (to chase pleasant feelings and avoid negative ones), giving specific conditions, it can get enlightened. Same as a computer, giving favorable conditions (internet connection, updates avaliable) - it can perfect itself and go towards what it is programmed to do by algorithms.

Also, same as the computer can be conditioned by a human to shut down, in the same way a human can be conditioned by another human to shut down. Everything a living organism does is conditioned by one thing or another, same as all a computer does is conditioned by one thing or another. Even when a human goes to the toilet for example, it is first conditioned by specific factors arising, it does not go there out of the blue with no reason. Everything a human does is conditioned by algorhitms (ADN, mental tendencies, etc.)
But as i just wrote above, i agree this definition is large and will not help your debate. So, the second definition is "life", ie a consistent set that does reproduce itself. So the "ever changing" somewhat remains, but not totally. The DNA remains as is your whole life. if you lose an arm you lose it for your whole life. If you live something very strong past 4 years you will remember it your whole life. And so on. This self is not a soul but it correspond to a reality we can measure and experiment. This self is known by science, actually it's true nature was discovered by science.
About the first part: Nothing remains the same, not even memory. As a matter of fact, eye witnessing is considered almost useless in trials because memories actually change a lot more than people think. As for the rest of your body remaining intact despite losing an arm, that rest of the body will get eaten by worms and even the skeleton will desintegrate eventually.

As for "the self is not a soul but it corresponds to a reality we can measure and experiment" - what do you mean by that ?
I agree we can consider life to be programed, since world is determined by conditions.

Regarding your critique of the "wounded arm" argument, i'm not sure what you mean by the fact that, once dead, there is no more body. Obviously when one defines Self as life, as soon as death occur there is no more Self.

"The reality we can measure" - I mean we can measure how long people live, how long a baby needs to grow up, how much we eat, we can measure the fact the body fights against intruders like virus or bacteria. We can measure the capacity of the body to create new cells. We can measure how much close is my body to the body of Gandhi, Attila, or algae. This is the advantage of this definition : the definition might be challenged, so we can reply to what is the self this way : "a self takes that long to become a self", "it lives that long", "it consumes that quantity of its envrionment", "it does reproduce itself that many times", "it is capable of running at this speed for that time",.
Since generally people do not deny biology, this should lead people to critique and say the Self is to be found somewhere else :

This way there is a frontier for this debate, and actually i even belive defining self = body = life clarifies that real debate regarding self are
* dualist, that believe there is a physical world and a psychical world (i guess we can say nama rupa)
* free will partisan, who will reject that biology is the unique explanation for brain->decision.

If there is a debate regarding Self, here it is : the Self would be outside the material world (outside Science) and somewhat outside of conditions (once agan outside Science). Otherwise the self is just as i wrote, the body : this makes everyone bored to death =)
Post Reply