5 ms·

Whether or not your concept of self is challenged depends on your current concept. If you think biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied physics,

Whether or not your concept of self is challenged depends on your current concept. If you think biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied physics, you're just fine.

foobar1962 9y ago
You articulated my thoughts perfectly, thanks.
unclebucknasty 9y ago
I think it's useful to draw a distinction between the concept of self and the sense of self. The concept of self refers to the physical being. That's purely a physical consideration: i.e. the physics you mention. OTOH, the sense of self refers to sentience. It's more "who am I?" than "what am I?" For instance, it's what is fractured in dissociative disorders. So, here, you can have your concept of self challenged without your sense of self being affected.
- jm__87 9y ago
  Are you referring to the difference between the subjective experience of feeling like a "self" vs your knowledge of being a "self" (or the illusion of being a self)? If that is the case, I actually disagree that the experience of being a self would remain unchanged indefinitely if you change your belief of what you are as a self. If you are mindful of your new concept of self, the character of your daily experience will be changed as you reframe your experiences in to your new concept of self. To take this to an extreme, you could practice mindfulness meditation to the point where you lose the experience of a sense of self.
  - unclebucknasty 9y ago
    Well, the first I referenced is just the physical notion of self, more attuned to the article. If I realize that I am x % bacteria, then it may change my perception of that physical self. But, I don't believe that it would, per se, cause me to question my very existence as a self. However, I agree that if I were inclined, then it could certainly be one of any number of factors (including mindfulness meditation or any serious conscious consideration) that prompts me to start thinking about or questioning my "self" as a sentient entity beyond just my physical being. I just don't believe that such an outcome is inevitable or that those two experiences of self necessarily converge. That is, one can certainly question the former without ever considering the latter. In fact, I would wager that most who encounter an article such as this would fall into that category.
    - jm__87 9y ago
      Gotcha. I was a bit confused by your "physical self" terminology as the relevance of the term "physical self" depends on whether you believe in some non-physical self or if you believe that consciousness and thus the self is just some emergent property of a particular configuration in your "physical self" (and thus there is no such thing as a non-physical self). There is a lot of evidence that if you change some configuration of your physical self that your experience of self will change.
gowld 9y ago
As long as you understand that "you" don't exist, you are just fine.
- red75prime 9y ago
  What are the practical consequences? Should I revoke your status as a being I have general moral obligations to? Or should I extend my moral obligations to all objects animated or not?
  - hrhehehee 9y ago
    You should extend your moral obligations to all animated objects.
  - gowld 9y ago
    You have a moral obligation to the Universe inclusive of everything it comprises, not any isolated parts of it.
- Retric 9y ago
  Sure I do, the limitation is in peoples failure to recognize reality not a static notion of self. People think of themselves as a living organism but skin makes use of dead cells. At the other end people think of non organic tattoos and dental fillings as part of who they are. Beyond that, when driving you don't think in terms of this giant extra thing, it's also part of the fuzzy self. Really, the core failure is the rather western insistence on clear separations and concrete ideas. I would posit that self as those resources under your control is probably a better fit for how people think than a simplified biology.
  - jm__87 9y ago
    I think most people don't have a use for thinking of reality in these terms until they struggle with something that brings them to this line of questioning or unless they are just naturally very curious and have a lot of free time. As far as I know, the practice of mindfulness (which I'm assuming is a necessity for getting a more objective view of the world) is just as esoteric today in the East where these practices originated from.. only the philosophy underpinning the practice may be seen as less foreign over there.

Whether or not your concept of self is challenged depends on your current concept. If you think biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied physics, you're just fine.

foobar1962 9y ago

You articulated my thoughts perfectly, thanks.

unclebucknasty 9y ago

I think it's useful to draw a distinction between the concept of self and the sense of self. The concept of self refers to the physical being. That's purely a physical consideration: i.e. the physics you mention. OTOH, the sense of self refers to sentience. It's more "who am I?" than "what am I?" For instance, it's what is fractured in dissociative disorders. So, here, you can have your concept of self challenged without your sense of self being affected.

jm__87 9y ago
Are you referring to the difference between the subjective experience of feeling like a "self" vs your knowledge of being a "self" (or the illusion of being a self)? If that is the case, I actually disagree that the experience of being a self would remain unchanged indefinitely if you change your belief of what you are as a self. If you are mindful of your new concept of self, the character of your daily experience will be changed as you reframe your experiences in to your new concept of self. To take this to an extreme, you could practice mindfulness meditation to the point where you lose the experience of a sense of self.
- unclebucknasty 9y ago
  Well, the first I referenced is just the physical notion of self, more attuned to the article. If I realize that I am x % bacteria, then it may change my perception of that physical self. But, I don't believe that it would, per se, cause me to question my very existence as a self. However, I agree that if I were inclined, then it could certainly be one of any number of factors (including mindfulness meditation or any serious conscious consideration) that prompts me to start thinking about or questioning my "self" as a sentient entity beyond just my physical being. I just don't believe that such an outcome is inevitable or that those two experiences of self necessarily converge. That is, one can certainly question the former without ever considering the latter. In fact, I would wager that most who encounter an article such as this would fall into that category.
  - jm__87 9y ago
    Gotcha. I was a bit confused by your "physical self" terminology as the relevance of the term "physical self" depends on whether you believe in some non-physical self or if you believe that consciousness and thus the self is just some emergent property of a particular configuration in your "physical self" (and thus there is no such thing as a non-physical self). There is a lot of evidence that if you change some configuration of your physical self that your experience of self will change.

gowld 9y ago

As long as you understand that "you" don't exist, you are just fine.

red75prime 9y ago
What are the practical consequences? Should I revoke your status as a being I have general moral obligations to? Or should I extend my moral obligations to all objects animated or not?
- hrhehehee 9y ago
  You should extend your moral obligations to all animated objects.
- gowld 9y ago
  You have a moral obligation to the Universe inclusive of everything it comprises, not any isolated parts of it.
Retric 9y ago
Sure I do, the limitation is in peoples failure to recognize reality not a static notion of self. People think of themselves as a living organism but skin makes use of dead cells. At the other end people think of non organic tattoos and dental fillings as part of who they are. Beyond that, when driving you don't think in terms of this giant extra thing, it's also part of the fuzzy self. Really, the core failure is the rather western insistence on clear separations and concrete ideas. I would posit that self as those resources under your control is probably a better fit for how people think than a simplified biology.
- jm__87 9y ago
  I think most people don't have a use for thinking of reality in these terms until they struggle with something that brings them to this line of questioning or unless they are just naturally very curious and have a lot of free time. As far as I know, the practice of mindfulness (which I'm assuming is a necessity for getting a more objective view of the world) is just as esoteric today in the East where these practices originated from.. only the philosophy underpinning the practice may be seen as less foreign over there.