• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

what's the self?

psychology philosophy self

  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic
⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#61 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 02 January 2016 - 02:23 PM

Oh dear. I once wrote a linguistics essay including several paragraphs that looked extremely profound and were full of big words but which deliberately meant absolutely nothing.



#62 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 02 January 2016 - 02:59 PM

Are you incapable of using a dictionary? It appears you are incapable of searching for a words meaning then placing it into a sentences context. Oh theres some more confusing words. No they are not confusing for you, the fact remains you are immature. But you knew that right? Or are you lazy and have been told you are worth more if you stick to things that are understandable for your current brain activity.
Isn't there peer reviewed experiments that show random number generators not working as random.
Whats the matter? Your profile says you would rather let someone else cook for you at a large distance away from your home planet. Cheer up boy, start cooking for yourself.
But what is food? Can a mature person live of prana alone? What is the self if it isn't the multiple layers that confuse the immature so readily.

 

I have no problem with the words, but I fail to see a connection between your combinations of words and reality, or anything meaningful at all really. I asked what a higher self might be and your reply began "photon energetics," which on grounds of grammar alone, is more or less incapable of being a sensible answer. How that might lead to a more "efficient traversal of the environment", whatever that means, and what it might have to do with a self or a higher self, is beyond the expressive powers of your language. It is simply an assertion with little or no meaningful content, and no substantial relation to the topic or to the specific question that was asked. If you have discovered some new fundamental science, we can all look forward to reading the book when you have it translated into English.


Edited by johnross47, 02 January 2016 - 03:01 PM.


#63 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -48
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 06 January 2016 - 08:44 PM

You have no problems with words. But you have a problem understanding the scientific abstract of photons and plasma energetic theories. I can't see a point in writing books as others are doing a great job in authoring books on the subjects I enjoy.
Alex Putney is my favourite author at the moment.
My view, as stated before, is that a mind is immature and basic without adequate nutrition and spiritual confirmations about beliefs. The higher self in mine and others opinion is the thing that deals with spiritual things. This a very simple explanation, a book would not cover these subjects. My language is fine, the words used are chosen for their context, I'm not one for twisting meanings. The subjects have many interpretations from many sources, anyone wants me to reiterate, I always encourage a question. The Vedas may be a good starting point, there's plenty of translations about.
What does it all mean? It means alot to some, not much to others. Have some T'ai Chi classes? Feelings and moving(traversing) through the environment the self does? not? This thread is about the self? I won't bother getting gamma lessons, but thanks for the positive encouragement?




I hope the gramma police don't catch me, next thing you know it will be the thought police!

Edited by Multivitz, 06 January 2016 - 09:19 PM.


sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#64 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 07 January 2016 - 03:07 PM

You have no problems with words. But you have a problem understanding the scientific abstract of photons and plasma energetic theories. I can't see a point in writing books as others are doing a great job in authoring books on the subjects I enjoy.
Alex Putney is my favourite author at the moment.
My view, as stated before, is that a mind is immature and basic without adequate nutrition and spiritual confirmations about beliefs. The higher self in mine and others opinion is the thing that deals with spiritual things. This a very simple explanation, a book would not cover these subjects. My language is fine, the words used are chosen for their context, I'm not one for twisting meanings. The subjects have many interpretations from many sources, anyone wants me to reiterate, I always encourage a question. The Vedas may be a good starting point, there's plenty of translations about.
What does it all mean? It means alot to some, not much to others. Have some T'ai Chi classes? Feelings and moving(traversing) through the environment the self does? not? This thread is about the self? I won't bother getting gamma lessons, but thanks for the positive encouragement?




I hope the gramma police don't catch me, next thing you know it will be the thought police!

 

Disagreeing with your fantasies is not the same as failing to understand the subject. When I compared you to Shadowhawk I was thinking of his unpleasant habit of abusing people who challenge him and making assertions and accusations about that other person's knowledge and ability without the slightest knowledge of them at all.  When I joined in this topic I was hoping it would live up to its billing, in the Philosophy and Immortailism thread,  on the subject of What is the Self? This is a long way from philosophy and science. I hoped there might be  discussion of the ideas of people like Locke, Hume, Dennett, Damasio or the more speculative ideas of Hamerof and Penrose, for example.

 

Piling new age fantasy fusions on top of Cartesian duality fails for the same reason Descartes' ideas failed. There is no evidence for a soul/ghost/spirit whatever, and no plausible mechanism has ever been proposed wherby the putative soul can interact with the body. 

 



#65 Leonardo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Earth

Posted 07 January 2016 - 05:15 PM

You have no problems with words. But you have a problem understanding the scientific abstract of photons and plasma energetic theories. I can't see a point in writing books as others are doing a great job in authoring books on the subjects I enjoy.
Alex Putney is my favourite author at the moment.
My view, as stated before, is that a mind is immature and basic without adequate nutrition and spiritual confirmations about beliefs. The higher self in mine and others opinion is the thing that deals with spiritual things. This a very simple explanation, a book would not cover these subjects. My language is fine, the words used are chosen for their context, I'm not one for twisting meanings. The subjects have many interpretations from many sources, anyone wants me to reiterate, I always encourage a question. The Vedas may be a good starting point, there's plenty of translations about.
What does it all mean? It means alot to some, not much to others. Have some T'ai Chi classes? Feelings and moving(traversing) through the environment the self does? not? This thread is about the self? I won't bother getting gamma lessons, but thanks for the positive encouragement?




I hope the gramma police don't catch me, next thing you know it will be the thought police!

 

this is plain fucking stupid and even reaches troll levels, if there is a mod watching please shut down the thread or block this guy from posting further messages here.

the topic is to discuss the "self", not some weirdo's personal conspiracy theories and fantastic world views, fucks sake.



#66 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 08 January 2016 - 08:43 AM

 

You have no problems with words. But you have a problem understanding the scientific abstract of photons and plasma energetic theories. I can't see a point in writing books as others are doing a great job in authoring books on the subjects I enjoy.
Alex Putney is my favourite author at the moment.
My view, as stated before, is that a mind is immature and basic without adequate nutrition and spiritual confirmations about beliefs. The higher self in mine and others opinion is the thing that deals with spiritual things. This a very simple explanation, a book would not cover these subjects. My language is fine, the words used are chosen for their context, I'm not one for twisting meanings. The subjects have many interpretations from many sources, anyone wants me to reiterate, I always encourage a question. The Vedas may be a good starting point, there's plenty of translations about.
What does it all mean? It means alot to some, not much to others. Have some T'ai Chi classes? Feelings and moving(traversing) through the environment the self does? not? This thread is about the self? I won't bother getting gamma lessons, but thanks for the positive encouragement?




I hope the gramma police don't catch me, next thing you know it will be the thought police!

 

this is plain fucking stupid and even reaches troll levels, if there is a mod watching please shut down the thread or block this guy from posting further messages here.

the topic is to discuss the "self", not some weirdo's personal conspiracy theories and fantastic world views, fucks sake.

 

 

I gave up on any topic involving Shadowhawk because of his abusive behaviour, dishonesty and the way he made every topic about him instead of the subject. Multivitz seems to be the same in most respects, right down to the incompetent use of English, but he lacks even the understanding of what logical argument is meant to look like. It's a great pity that troll-like behaviour is allowed to prevent rational discussion of interesting subjects.
 



⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#67 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 08 January 2016 - 04:40 PM

I just had a look at Alex Putney. What a mountain of pathologically stupid made-up drivel. If you want a small laugh have a look, though there is a risk it might make you weep with despair instead.



#68 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2016 - 12:54 AM

 

You have no problems with words. But you have a problem understanding the scientific abstract of photons and plasma energetic theories. I can't see a point in writing books as others are doing a great job in authoring books on the subjects I enjoy.
Alex Putney is my favourite author at the moment.
My view, as stated before, is that a mind is immature and basic without adequate nutrition and spiritual confirmations about beliefs. The higher self in mine and others opinion is the thing that deals with spiritual things. This a very simple explanation, a book would not cover these subjects. My language is fine, the words used are chosen for their context, I'm not one for twisting meanings. The subjects have many interpretations from many sources, anyone wants me to reiterate, I always encourage a question. The Vedas may be a good starting point, there's plenty of translations about.
What does it all mean? It means alot to some, not much to others. Have some T'ai Chi classes? Feelings and moving(traversing) through the environment the self does? not? This thread is about the self? I won't bother getting gamma lessons, but thanks for the positive encouragement?




I hope the gramma police don't catch me, next thing you know it will be the thought police!

 

Disagreeing with your fantasies is not the same as failing to understand the subject. When I compared you to Shadowhawk I was thinking of his unpleasant habit of abusing people who challenge him and making assertions and accusations about that other person's knowledge and ability without the slightest knowledge of them at all.  When I joined in this topic I was hoping it would live up to its billing, in the Philosophy and Immortailism thread,  on the subject of What is the Self? This is a long way from philosophy and science. I hoped there might be  discussion of the ideas of people like Locke, Hume, Dennett, Damasio or the more speculative ideas of Hamerof and Penrose, for example.

 

Piling new age fantasy fusions on top of Cartesian duality fails for the same reason Descartes' ideas failed. There is no evidence for a soul/ghost/spirit whatever, and no plausible mechanism has ever been proposed wherby the putative soul can interact with the body. 

I remember it differently with your hundreds of posts consisting of just calling names.  I still have examples which I posted.  Perhaps I could reference them ikf you like.

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#69 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2016 - 01:01 AM

 

 

You have no problems with words. But you have a problem understanding the scientific abstract of photons and plasma energetic theories. I can't see a point in writing books as others are doing a great job in authoring books on the subjects I enjoy.
Alex Putney is my favourite author at the moment.
My view, as stated before, is that a mind is immature and basic without adequate nutrition and spiritual confirmations about beliefs. The higher self in mine and others opinion is the thing that deals with spiritual things. This a very simple explanation, a book would not cover these subjects. My language is fine, the words used are chosen for their context, I'm not one for twisting meanings. The subjects have many interpretations from many sources, anyone wants me to reiterate, I always encourage a question. The Vedas may be a good starting point, there's plenty of translations about.
What does it all mean? It means alot to some, not much to others. Have some T'ai Chi classes? Feelings and moving(traversing) through the environment the self does? not? This thread is about the self? I won't bother getting gamma lessons, but thanks for the positive encouragement?




I hope the gramma police don't catch me, next thing you know it will be the thought police!

 

this is plain fucking stupid and even reaches troll levels, if there is a mod watching please shut down the thread or block this guy from posting further messages here.

the topic is to discuss the "self", not some weirdo's personal conspiracy theories and fantastic world views, fucks sake.

 

 

I gave up on any topic involving Shadowhawk because of his abusive behaviour, dishonesty and the way he made every topic about him instead of the subject. Multivitz seems to be the same in most respects, right down to the incompetent use of English, but he lacks even the understanding of what logical argument is meant to look like. It's a great pity that troll-like behaviour is allowed to prevent rational discussion of interesting subjects.
 

 

Still calling people names after all this time.  :)  Oh well we know who the real abuser and doshonest person is.  Have a nice day.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#70 shadowhawk

  • Member
  • 4,700 posts
  • -113
  • Location:Scotts Valley, Ca.
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2016 - 01:05 AM

I just had a look at Alex Putney. What a mountain of pathologically stupid made-up drivel. If you want a small laugh have a look, though there is a risk it might make you weep with despair instead.

A typical post.  Nasty, Mean, ugly.  Nothing different.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#71 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 09 January 2016 - 02:16 PM

 


 

I gave up on any topic involving Shadowhawk because of his abusive behaviour, dishonesty and the way he made every topic about him instead of the subject. Multivitz seems to be the same in most respects, right down to the incompetent use of English, but he lacks even the understanding of what logical argument is meant to look like. It's a great pity that troll-like behaviour is allowed to prevent rational discussion of interesting subjects.
 

 

 

 



#72 N.T.M.

  • Guest
  • 640 posts
  • 120
  • Location:Reno, NV

Posted 12 January 2016 - 09:27 PM

To the OP: I agree with the content of your paper, but it could use a few tweaks from a writing perspective (if you're interested). You have a few run-on sentences interspersed, at one point you describe the self, which is singular, as phenomena, which is plural, and the conclusion at the end doesn't directly relate to the content of your paper.



#73 Leonardo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 20 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Earth

Posted 12 January 2016 - 10:13 PM

To the OP: I agree with the content of your paper, but it could use a few tweaks from a writing perspective (if you're interested). You have a few run-on sentences interspersed, at one point you describe the self, which is singular, as phenomena, which is plural, and the conclusion at the end doesn't directly relate to the content of your paper.

 

thanks mate, and yes, any help with that would be appreciated. 



#74 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 725 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 12 January 2016 - 11:24 PM

I've read it too. One problem I have in commenting is that psychology courses vary enormously in their content; it would probably be fairly easy to find courses with no overlap of study material at all and only a little overlap in subject headings. For me "self" is intimately involved with the idea of consciousness, but bearing in mind that what we are conscious of has already been processed by pre-conscious/unconscious parts of the system. Many of the biases that influence the behaviours that others will see as reflecting a self, are more affected by unconscious processes than conscious decisions. My first port of call in looking at this subject would be Damasio's, "Self Comes To Mind". I think his emphasis on the basic function of the brain being the maintenance of homeostsis is crucially important. Other good people would be Susan Blackmore, Daniel Dennett or Patricia and/or Paul Churchland.



#75 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -48
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 13 January 2016 - 01:55 PM

'The functioning of homeostasis', the brain does that as part of the chemical mechanism of metabolic balance, true. It radiates photons along with the CNS to maintain tissues and the endocrine system. It also provides a structure for holographic perception. The eye of the mind can be focused into other realms to. When one experiences these realms, one realises that the self can be more than the body, can influence it's environment through many realised beliefs.
The self is experienced through the brain, the brain is a junction box of sorts, an antenna to the higher selves. Some people are only comfortable understanding it in a basic way. I have personally seen the hate and deep ignorance of many beliefs over decades of time. When looking back over history we see the systematic attempted destruction of shamanistic practices by ignorant men and their basic immature views.
Killing is encouraged by the cowards, their misplaced hate from their immature views.
Their cognitive dissonance chemically driving the basic instinct from fear of the unknown (unknown to them) turning to hate.
The self as a subject is not the brain, it is a concept and as such, should only be taken as a concept.
To look into the advanced research about the self is fascinating, but it is usually way beyond the comprehension of some people. There are a few of them here, they like to think that it's good practice to insult someone like me, someone they have never seen in the flesh. They keep telling themselves they are doing right, others agree, so it must be ok. A small consolation, for a ginormous foolhardy assumption of thinking they are being righteous?
Biochemical psychological behaviour is recognised in ancient religious writings and they explain how the self is deemed separate from it. I think it may be called a character, a character of past influences. My port of calling, even though myself isn't a vessel, would be Mark Passio. Lol could Johnboy handle it for a couple of hours......I seriously doubt his brain has the plasticity of new comprehension. And the thanks of any new understandings would be blocked by his pride from his old stone structure.


My comments have been about explaining to the OP that the self is to be found by oneself and not in the flesh, it's a pity crying shame in this day and age we still see the old moronic stereotypes that follow the same sad psychological mindset as the Spanish Inquisition. So pre 2012!

Edited by Multivitz, 13 January 2016 - 02:10 PM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • like x 1

#76 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -48
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 13 January 2016 - 02:18 PM

He who throws the first stone will look like a psychopathic fool. Or as Arny would say, 'first move is the wrong move'!?
......ad homiem mug.
  • Off-Topic x 1
  • WellResearched x 1

#77 Multivitz

  • Guest
  • 550 posts
  • -48
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 13 January 2016 - 02:25 PM

For the record, Alex Putney has done alot more for man kind than most. All his writings are referenced, so the reader can research for themselves through peer reviewed repeatable observations called experiments.
Carl Jung's achitypal concepts and Rupert Sheldrakes morphic resonance theories have had successful experiments that show how the self is observed. It's not new age fantasy as some would foolishly exclaim so often imo.


Me? I'm probably ' the opposite to easy listening radio'. I'm difficult to read, most people get uncomfortable with my subjects and you might learn something on the way?

Edited by Multivitz, 13 January 2016 - 03:24 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Informative x 1

⌛⇒ MITOMOUSE has been fully funded!

#78 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 06 March 2016 - 03:42 PM

 

 

 

No I don't define myself as equal to memories. Memories are something that the self has, and therefore not something that it is. The self may have no long term memories at all but still exist, as long as there's short term memory (which I think is necessary to have any awareness at all).

 

Lets consider another extreme. A human being that behaves just like any other but lacks qualia - i.e. every action and thought is performed subconsciously, and there's no conscious awareness of these processes. The brain is processing information and doing all that it should, but there's no experiencer inside. Would you say that this being has a self?

 

saying that it behaves like any other would mean that it still follows certain rules, or conditions set by society, which means there is some form of consciousness, even though there are no signs of higher cognitive functioning

but if you are talking of an hypothetical weird condition in which a person can feed himself and such, but has no conscious of it, again, it would still follow basic primitive principles, like a zombie from pop culture

 

we could say that zombies share the same "basic" self, if they were to exist, as their only impulse is to feed themselves, and here we see that the higher the cognitive abilities, the more a self can develop

 

 

Yes it's hypothetical. Conscious awareness is something we take for granted. But it's really a mystery. Because I see no reason why the brain couldn't do without it - if we see the brain basically as a complex biological machine for processing information. Like a robot or a zombie. For example, I have a robot cleaner, and it knows when it needs to feed / recharge and it can find it's way back to the charging station by it's own. Would you say that this robot also has a basic self? And if not, why is there a self inside a human being while there is non inside a robot. What's the critical difference?

 

 

 

I would say that it has an artificial basic self, programmed by an external entity.

When it comes to us, we developed it naturally, through evolutionary needs, with no programming from the outside.

 

Going deeper into A.I we can see that a much higher self can develop with advancements in the field, and we could be rendered useless, in quite a short period of time.

 

 

evolution human built is the same in the sense that both actions are determined.

i dunno if we need to destroy ourselves in order to evolve a merge with machines



#79 seivtcho

  • Guest
  • 2,009 posts
  • 407
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 06 March 2016 - 04:49 PM

If we merge with the machines, we will destroy ourselves, and will be replaced with mechanics and electronics. We will become a planet of robots. 

We don't need that. 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#80 Julia36

  • Guest
  • 2,267 posts
  • -11
  • Location:Reach far
  • NO

Posted 30 March 2016 - 03:40 PM

care to define the self seivtcho :|?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: psychology, philosophy, self

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users