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.Circle5 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:19 amDNS wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:11 am Since you said you want a debate . . .
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?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 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 ?
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.