Bruce Hood - What are Selves?

[@puppetperception7861]

This is a very underrated topic

[@amadubah8931]

Facts

[@SpidermanInLondon]

Says who?

[@vitr1916]

When you are watching some people are discussing about subject with their own perspectives. Option1: if you don’t have any experience or or consciousness to connect to those perspectives, you will bias to the the person is attracted to you. Option 2: You will search and find out with your own experience and perspectives for a while (seconds, days, years…) to connect those thing together. Your consciousness is always redefined until you realize an acceptable reality.

[@cheesypotat0es]

I'd like to see more talks about this topic in the future.

[@AKSURFS]

Love your channel, supporting here dear friend ✨👍

[@rachelrowarth154]

Gosh! Thought provoking!

[@justahuman2244]

Bruce’s book, The Self Illusion, is an excellent read.

[@bossbear7187]

one of my favs

[@lomaschueco]

If we applied the very title of the book to the author, how's that book an excellent read when the author by his own admission concedes he's self deluded? Or the title doesn't apply to him but the rest of us? Since when do we listen to self deluded people?

[@bossbear7187]

@@lomaschueco yeah sure

[@lomaschueco]

@@bossbear7187 Anything meaningful to say?

[@bossbear7187]

@@lomaschueco Only when something meaningful is said.

[@KingJorman]

The self is that which hypostatizes itself and everything else it takes to be real, independently existing objects.

[@Farsider3955]

🤔……. Bruce’s statement at 7:12 does not make any logical or rational sense. These 2 guys are sitting together having a friendly conversation about “selves” speculating about whether they are “selves” or just some bio-mechanical machines who believe they have free will. But if one of these guys takes complete control over the other (i.e., one imprisons the other, binds and beats the other, or places him in solitary confinement for whatever amount of time they want, and decides if and when the one imprisoned will eat, or will ever be freed from bondage and torment….. ……go ahead and ask the one, who is the victim of the other, whether he is a self or he’s just “experiencing illusions of being a self”, when virtually all of his free will has been denied to him. When humans oppress other humans - and even have the power to decide whether another “self” will live or die….. there are no illusions going on here. As an example….. human beings locked in cages so small in North Korean prisons that they can not stand up nor even stretch out or lie down, and suffer unimaginable horrors at the hands of other human beings….. these are all “selves” - and they are under no illusions. To theorize otherwise is insane speculation. Life experiences whether joyful or horrifying - or somewhere in between - are not illusions. They are real….. and they are consequential.

[@murraydunn6704]

So if everything Bruce Hood just said is the result of many unconscious processes that were initiated through a chain of causality that stretches back to the beginning of the universe and that has given rise to the emergent property that we call “Bruce Hood”, then how can we give it any validity at all? Indeed what is truth if everything, every thought, every choice, every action, is the outcome of a chain of causality over which we have no control? How can we determine whether the ideas articulated through the emergent property (Bruce Hood}, contain any objective truth when, by his own logic, our meditations on his utterance would, themselves, be merely “illusions”? When he says “we” make excuses for what we call the self” who is “we”? Does he mean the “many processes” that form the basis of what we think and decide are making excuses for the emergent property we call the self?

[@dungteller367]

It is all just thinking. Being separate from all that is, is just thinking. Yes the body and mind are actual however it is thought that says this body is you. Further this body has personal traits. Suppose you discovered that you were adopted, you would feel that you weren't the "who" that your thought says you were. Thought creates the notion of self, which is dynamic always in flux. Responsibility does not require the projected notion of the self. I am responsible for this comment, with out the need for the self.

[@williamburts5495]

I exist, and to know that you exit you have to be conscious that you exist, it is this knowing that you " be " or " am " that is the self. Are you conscious? Answer: Of course you are and it is you being conscious of yourself that makes you your own individual self.

[@davetech2346]

I had to watch it twice because the first time I kept wondering where he got that time machine behind him.

[@projectmalus]

The self is a locus between, the balance point of inner and outer magnitudes. Thanks.

[@estabi]

Nice. You're welcome!

[@AMorgan57]

Excellent talk. To hone this question more, ask experts in mindfulness and evolution.

[@jwbflyer]

Thanks RLK for another good video. I think it is very interesting parallel that when we scratch below the level of the atom, things quickly get more omelet and strange. Very similar to trying to scratch below the surface and understand self.

[@neilboucher]

I think the word illusion means " I have no idea what's going on so I'll call it an illusion."

[@sentientflower7891]

Illusion in this case means a mirage, that being an imaginary thing which cannot be approached and cannot be found.

[@kos-mos1127]

The term illusion means something is not what it appears to be.

[@roganjoshkrishna2950]

An illusion is a sensory experience that is created by the brain, yet is not reflective of objective reality.

[@leomdk939]

"You can't have a localized seat of consciousness" ... then why is every experience I have seated inside my head? I am me, not you ... I am over here and you over there - how is that? I have never experienced anything from any perspective other than from inside my body. That seems pretty localized and how that can be is one of the biggest mysteries of life. A baby was born 40 years ago, and that baby, for some reason, was (or housed?) the localized seat of consciousness that I call "me". It has remained that way for 40 years. Whether I am in control or not, I certainly seem to have a finite location. So do you. How does he explain this?

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

That self is making decisions whether to pay attention to this or not pay attention to it.

[@gre7310]

We are a way the universe found to observe itself.

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Observer youself it is corrected. However observer " itself" Isnt RIGHT. Itself is unpredicted reality. Observe isnt figuret out reality. Observer youself is reality apart. Brains Not picuret real World.

[@fisettrudeau]

A very good one!

[@stIncMale]

"...you can't have a little man driving inside your head , or a little woman" - that last part added in a desperate attempt to fix a sentence that did not require any fixing is really disturbing.

[@RicardoConfessori]

Blue pill guy

[@stIncMale]

@@RicardoConfessori I guess you are referring to red/blue pill choice in "The Matrix", but I still don't understand the message. Could you elaborate?

[@williamburts5495]

" it was the wine talking " translates to because I am drunk I am not checking myself and therefore I am blurting out anything that comes to mind but because i normally don't do that " I am not my normal self "

[@ivanbeshkov1718]

Since my early teens I've experienced periodic "existential freakouts", usually in the company of others. Suddenly, everything becomes hopelessly absurd and terrifying, including my own self. It's as if I am an extraterrestrial among extraterrestrials, which is actually the case, as from any other planet, we are aliens. In such moments I feel an urgency to flee the scene so no one will notice my predicament. I don't understand why, never having existed and never likely to exist again, I exist now, and what existence even means, or what the universe's existence would mean absent my perception of it. I formulate my inquiry into self thus: Why wasn't my identical twin born instead of me? Not so much, that I regret having been born, as why this organism born to "my parents" is supposed to be me, is indeed me, whatever "is" or "me" may be. Why isn't someone else me, such as my unborn (never conceived) identical twin. No one seems to have an answer, most don't even understand the question.

[@REDPUMPERNICKEL]

My self is merely the thought to which the word 'self' is referring when I form sentences like, 'It is my self who is conscious'. So when I ask my self, 'What is a thought', I find the answer to be immediately self evident... a thought is a representation. So what does the thought of my self represent? Of course it represents my body, at least, that is what at first I thought. Now I think my self-thought represents all the thoughts for which my body is the substrate as well as representing my body.

[@sezmihusayn4426]

we are enery,vibration,waves,electron,nucleus,proton,conciousness,curiosity,wisdom,intelligent.....thats how we should always see ourself,so that we realize every decision we made,every thought we think, every deed we do generating waves particle influence dimension of reality we experience....''by mention what we perceive are an illusion doesnt bring any direction other than more confusion which is also an illusion''

[@JavierTijuana]

Then we could describe the illusion of Self as a sensation or subjective experience of coherent integration in order to give sense to our conscience of being a person. So there is no a Self but rather the product of the sum of the parts in interaction being cognitive, somato-physical and unconscious processes.

[@tedgrant2]

I like the idea that I don't actual exist.

[@glenemma1]

The self is an illusion. Everything is an illusion. Yet there is Self, even if their is no self.

[@joeolson6085]

The small self is the illusion.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

You make the choice to pull the trigger or not to pull the trigger. To face the consequences or not face the consequences to face the reality of the situation or not to face the reality of the situation.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

Sounds like he is referring more to free will arguments than questions about self.

[@hgracern]

Maybe we could find a self existing object some ‘where’. Does it have its own colour, texture, shape? Fab interview, thank you. 💕

[@puppetperception7861]

*Communication is Proof of Presence* He describes it as an illusion but has not identified any error. To say that the self is an illusion does not logically follow from ‘the brain is doing things and the representations we experience are not actual’. He must assume only knowledge can be obtained by inferring through observation with those less than actual representations, yet also he denies the actual occasion in which this is occurring where his self cannot be denied if his argument is true. For him, A=A can never be affirmed and he cannot identify himself. Unawareness of a thing from one moment to the next does not imply awareness of that thing is not possible which must be true to be aware of anything at all

[@waldwassermann]

It is not that there is no self; it is that there is only oneself not wanting to be by itself. - Wald Wassermann As such one returns to the same conclusion of all the sages throughout the different ages expressed in this four-letter word called LOVE.

[@glenngerardus51]

there is a sense of self but is there a self?

[@spacesciencelab]

Since my existence I have had this awareness in my brain, so I'm struggling to grasp this. He talks about an emergent property,what does that mean? Is he saying that the going ons in the brain is what creates our awareness, if so isn't that common sense. Then we do have a self in brains but it is not localized to one spot but rather it is the whole brain, right? Someone with knowledge please educate me on this. Thanks.

[@scoreprinceton]

In addition to what is considered in this video, there is an additional aspect of the societal view of this cohesive entity from pre-birth as an individual self which makes it mandatory to accept this illusion as not only real but permanent in an afterlife. Any amount of discussion/explanation by computer simulation, thought experiment or revelation is unlikely to reverse this societal confirmation of this “illusion” as truth.

[@guywhoisnotbob]

The is the focus point of many religions. They just use different language. God is all that exists. God creates a world and man. Man eventually thinks he is a separate thing and God demonstrates there is no separation. In Taoism we flow within (not apart from) the Tao; in Hinduism all is Brahmam; in Islam there is none but Allah; in Buddhism they remove all concepts entirely and still arrive at total unbroken unity. Or the void, depending on you POV.

[@kpllc4209]

Exactly also in Judaism the Lord your God is One and in Christianity Christ is all and in all.

[@roxammon5858]

If consciousness was all about the summation of complex processes, such as in a computer then this theory would allow for our consciousness and indeed our 'self' to be downloaded to a computer. If this were to happen to me, then where would "I" be? Would I exist in the computer or remain within my own skull? Clearly "I" cannot exist in both places, therefore the conscious self must be greater than the sum of it's processes.

[@kos-mos1127]

There is no singular conscious self. We are the Cosmos having a human experience.

[@kos-mos1127]

@pouya The Cosmos and the world are not the same thing. The Cosmos is the whole of physical reality. The World is our mental perception of the Cosmos. Space, time, shape, color, size, sound and mass are all concepts produce by consciousness. They are not real. Matter, energy, radiation and waves are real things in the Cosmos. The world exists inside your head as a model of Cosmos that you are in. If all of life and consciousness cease to exist the Cosmos would still be there. There would just be a state of perfect symmetrical undifferentiated unity. There would be one thing happening because without consciousness there would be nothing to contrast one thing against another.

[@jayadasd]

Great perspective. Makes a lot of sense when you (or the collection that makes up you) think of it.

[@PaulHoward108]

We are real selves, but we are not these bodies or anything material.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

When subconscious as well as conscious decisions are made, does the brain record or measure the decisions which could give a feeling of there being a self in the decision?

[@rileyhoffman6629]

You can indeed see your own eye movements: stare into the mirror, move your head, watch your eyes move.

[@1SpudderR]

Hmm? 1:20 in “Unconscious Self’s”.... I just wish these speakers would explain what they mean by “Unconscious!”...... Because you are not aware of your Subconscious! Does that mean it is also Unconscious?........I stepped on a brick yesterday and my Subconscious projected to my Awareness Conscious, that it hurt! The “Unconscious” brick did not respond at all!? There sure seems to be confusion among human teachers/scientists/religious/academics, just what “Unconscious” limits are? Among Dead Bricks and Living “Quantum Holistic Food Consuming Human Entities” ?

[@unexploredworlds9197]

Consciousness, soul, ego, free will,selves are same things.living things get consciousness from a complicated mechanism of non living materialistic basic species, I think.so what is the fundamental entity.string theory explains that vibrating pattern of string in different dimensions give birth to the nature.it is fact the consciousness is also a property just like other properties are produced by composition of basic units. So it may be an illusion.

[@paulcollins2289]

Does a river have continuity if a self doesn't?

[@abelincoln8885]

He's using circular reasoning for his doubt of our self awareness & free will, especially with any choice we have made or belief we have that has been influenced by some external force, event or experience. Being raised in a good or bad culture ... completely destroys what he beliefs. A dominant culture will have a major influence what most choose to believe & do ... but only because most chose to be part of that culture. You can choose not to comply to the culture you are part of, create your own, or be part of another. Just because you your family is involved in organized crime ... does not mean you have no free will ... to not be. Most will chose to follow the culture... but that is a choice knowing the pros/cons

[@therougesage7466]

Love how he made this guy he is interviewing understand how foolish the ideas he has are. Of course there’s a self.

[@stephencarlsbad]

Consciousness is likely the 5th dimension and is both relative to and entwined with space-time.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Does the brain have something that makes or gives meaning to the information that it processes? Might such meaning provide a sense of self for all the information processed by the brain?

[@projectmalus]

I feel the brain just processes and is one part only in an emergent result of meaning, and this is the brain contribution along with homeostasis of the body (heart timing etc) and another is the neurotransmitters that are to some degree a contribution of gut bacteria. But there could be microtubules and polarized lipids creating differences at the cellular level to make the difference.

[@Ekam-Sat]

There is only ONE self.

[@dongshengdi773]

We are made of stellar matter. the Big Question is , Why would a Rock become Self-aware? Why would a Rock have to become Self aware? What for? The Rock is already happy Floating in space through eternity. Why become "alive" and Experience Suffering?

[@spacesciencelab]

This is so hard to follow lol. It's so bizarre. Makes this existence even more strange.

[@irrelevant2235]

The concept of the self goes hand in hand with the concept of free will. It's very liberating once you realize that there is no self as well as no free will. The works of Bruce Hood and Sam Harris have made me realize this. If Robert Lawrence Kuhn's goal is indeed "Closer To Truth", then that is the truth where there is no self and no free will.

[@spacesciencelab]

This is all very strange to me. Does this mean that the future is predetermined?

[@irrelevant2235]

@@spacesciencelab I'm a determinist so I would say yes. There is a specific quantum mechanics experiment which 'sealed the deal' for me personally to believe that everything is predetermined. The experiment is called the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser.

[@PaulHoward108]

The Vedas explain that the more we become ignorant of our real selves, the more it seems that free will is an illusion. How does the delayed choice quantum eraser supposedly indicate a non-existence of free will? I've been familiar with that experiment for many years but never interpreted it that way.

[@lomaschueco]

So you believe you're just a meat bag or moist robot guided by purely chemical forces inside you about which you can do nothing? You believe that you don't have the freedom to chose a certain course of action because your chemical make up, which is purely mechanical, deterministically guides your every move and about which there's nothing you can do? And who is YOU by the way? If you're just a collection of atoms guided by chemical forces, how do you make distinctions between the collection of atoms and that which you call "me"? Also, if you don't have free will, how exactly did Harris and the other author help you since you don't have the freedom to chose amongst propositions and thus change your thinking or behavior? How did the works of those authors you cite help you in any way when you don't have free will to decide anything? One changes how one thinks when one can freely reason between conceptual stuff like arguments and propositions, but this requires that the subject be free to chose. How can any author, who is presumably also NOT FREE help you to change your thinking when there's nothing you can do about it? More importantly, those authors you cite don't have free will either so whatever they write or say is purely stuff that they cannot control. Where is the help here? If there's no self and you don't have free will, what exactly are you?

[@Ekam-Sat]

Vedas don’t say selves; Vedas say Self. One...

[@longcastle4863]

Feels to me like we're overthinking this... Wouldn't an integration of all these entities into a sense of a self with at least some level of oversight be evolutionarily beneficial? Isn't that what the frontal lobes are about?

[@sentientflower7891]

That is what he is saying: the Self is a beneficial illusion not an actual thing.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@sentientflower7891 The self is a beneficial illusion. There is no such thing as the self only the concept of the self. The brain leaves out data so that we have an experience of ourself.

[@sentientflower7891]

@@kos-mos1127 to say that there is no self is to say that the self is an illusion.

[@longcastle4863]

@@sentientflower7891 _Not_ an illusion, I would think, if it actually does have oversight, ability to plan, reason, think things through; reflect, evaluate; decide what _it_ as a singular entity should do in it's surrounding environment... Why wouldn't the ability to consider yourself as a singular package in the environment be a good thing in evolutionary terms? And why would should such a thing be called an illusion? Isn't the sense of self just the recognition that you are this thing in the landscape -- and that you have some control over it -- unlike that water buffalo over there...?

[@thomasridley8675]

Why are all these discussions restricted to the human free will and consciousness ? Every creature with a brain has to deal with the same issues.

[@deanodebo]

What does he mean “there are vast amounts” of the visual world that are missing, and the brain is filling them in??? Under these theories, isn’t the entirety of the visual world modeled in the brain? What am I not getting?

[@ausgepicht]

While Bruce made a solid go on articulating his point about control being related to a self, I think he was trying to illustrate a point that the Buddha made: if what you call a self was actually you or yours, you could simply say "stop" and it would. In other words, if you were being hounded by fears, anger, envy, constant thoughts, aches, pans, illnesses in the body, etc. and you wanted them to stop you could do so instantly, but you can't. If you were your thoughts and emotions, body and mind - which you are not - you would have complete control. Since you don't, it can't be you - a self. What we/you are is that which is left over after you have eliminated your body and mind. "This" is something without form or shape, is neither is created or dies since it is beyond time and space, is the ever and always eternal unborn. Thus, it eludes description and why all the scientists, religious leaders, and philosophers can't agree, often argue, and not one of them has succeeded in pinning down what the self and/or consciousness is. It is with the mystics of religions - NOT the organized version - where that answer lies. Organized religions and their adherents give "it" a name, a genders, a description than say they hold the Truth and argue, fight, torture, excommunicated, slaughter, kill, and go to war because they - no matter how moral they say they are - do not have an experience of "that." They are fighting over semantics and language and are like the person who has never left the town they grew up in and live, yet claim to be an expert in foreign countries. They are in actuality dangerous frauds.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

Since the eyes like a camera lens and it takes in and reflects out the light and light can cause blindness hence you get your blind spots. You're unfocused spots. Only Jesus Christ can take away those blemishes those spots and one day he will when he makes all things new like his word says. Clean white robes without spot or blemish. Wrapped in a clear vision. And that's exactly what his word is is being wrapped in a clear vision through the belief and trust in him and the true, truthful word that he has given.

[@profskmehta]

There is a “software” running this body (hardware). We cannot experience this software. And this software gives us a sense of coherence. This same as a humanoid.

[@jamescurtis9267]

The body lags behind the brain, but that is not the self. The spiritual being is the control level.

[@ssudhak2]

It is there but is not real. Its called a illusion. Sense of self is also a thought. Meditation can help us to recognise this.

[@ItsEverythingElse]

I'm not really sure what his point is or why it matters.

[@floriath]

The way he said woman at the end to be safe. Hehe.

[@r2c3]

What is the common age that the sense of self is perceived... 3-5 maybe... if so, then the self is a construct of what...

[@sentientflower7891]

The child is taught to answer to a sound, a name, and personality is imposed upon the child so as to distinguish itself from others. Personality is just another name for possessions since identity is created and preserved via external possessions and nothing else.

[@r2c3]

@@sentientflower7891 prior to the child becoming self-aware or developing his/her full consciousness, there must be another "agency" in control...

[@sentientflower7891]

@@r2c3 no, the child is a pure instinctual animal at that point. Afterwards an impure instinctual animal as possessions and training construct an imaginary identity until it inevitably breaks down.

[@r2c3]

@@sentientflower7891 "pure instinctual animal..." their brain is still in a developing stage... ok, what is the first instict or set of insticts a child has...

[@r2c3]

@pouya you conclude that " in this simulation, there is really no one, except a consciousness and a runing simulation!" The idea of an advanced simulation can be explored by understanding the nature of its functionality which in itself assumes a separate layer of consciousness which has constructed and runing it...so basically, the simulation idea doesn't help us understand what the true nature of consciousness is, it rather states that consciousness is produced by a higher consciousness with an associated self... now, if that is all you are questioning then you need to look no further but accept the fact that you are an automated process capable of producing complexity that's been runing for quite some time in an environment capable of sustaining it, is that a final answer for every question... what is the explanation of an intelligent source probing uncertainty with a simulation...

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

You could pay attention to that sense and understanding or not pay attention to that sense and understanding. You can be awake in it or you could be asleep in it just like God's word says.

[@rangerjesse1659]

A zygote is a human life, but is it a self?

[@latebloominghippie]

One of my most vivid, intriguing, energetic, and terrifying memories of “self” realization as a child, was looking at the barbie doll I was playing with and thinking in my head “What if I’m the barbie doll?” “Who’s story am I living?”

[@PPitambarP]

🧘‍♂️

[@allenrussell1947]

After nearly 4 billion years of evolution the human mind evolved and that's just how it is. Self evolved, deal with it. 😁

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

Not seeing your eyes moving the mirrors because you're shifting your focus. Just how a camera lens puts things into and out of focus. And I've seen plenty of videos where people have trouble getting the camera to focus how they want it to focus. They have trouble getting it to focus on the object that they wanted to focus on. So then that's a sick focusing a focusing that needs to be repaired, a focusing that has to get better. Or other ways to get that focus to focus on what you want. I'm going to keep my focus on Jesus Christ and his word the Bible I want to keep my focus in there and on that. Because that's the only thing that has given me truth and has focused me towards what is true.

[@therougesage7466]

This guy being interviewed was so nervous , his world view is that of a 14 year old

[@vanessadias9525]

Nice paraphernalia

[@pentosmelmac8679]

Define Self. Do we mean the core experience or my name, nationality, religion, occupation and all the other characteristics we hold dear. If we mean the second definition then he is right, if we mean the first, then, that is not a construct. There is no physical source of that tiny self.

[@sentientflower7891]

All those properties you mention are accidental and illusory.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

With all due respect Dr. Kuhn, I think you've slightly missed the point of Bruce Hood's use of visual subsystem quirks, as a way of conveying the brain's active, autonomous role in supporting an illusory qualitative experience of reality. The key, is to try to imagine experience without these filters/blinders( I don't believe a specific descriptor has been coined). For example, the blind spot case: We have to imagine how actually "seeing" the blind spot would manifest in our consciousness, and how that black hole in our field of view would possibly destroy the tendency for us to center "being" and "soul" in the eyes. Obviously, language needs to be developed, to facilitate communication of some of these rarified areas of thought, and the rabbit hole goes quite deep. There is another phenomenon called "Flashed face distortion effect" that seems to neutralize the role symmetry plays in facial recognition, with regards to beauty possibly... kzbin.info/www/bejne/jIWcmmxvecRsnas If you choose to view it, try looking in other positions than where instructed, to probe the envelope of influence. It's an interesting effect, to be sure. Take care.

[@godbernaz]

Amazing content

[@godbernaz]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas ?, Because if you are here, you are another person like Robert, trying to find an awnser, which Im not a big fan of God and dosnt awnser any of my questions, or you just end up beeing here just for any reason or search

[@godbernaz]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas look at your name dog

[@godbernaz]

@@ReverendDr.Thomas I though u we're playin around, and I think I explained my self cleary in first comment, my english is not perfect, maybe because Im not english, but I find amazing content on robert videos cause I wanna know the questions I make everyday with my mind

[@ohuseyin]

Robert’s heard too many other dualist perspectives to let this guys desperate arguments to go unchallenged.

[@spiritualawareness7736]

OMG THIS MAN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF MANY TIMES 😬🤔🤔

[@francesco5581]

We are not ...since we cant explain who we are We have not free will ....since we cant explain what it is There are no cosmic laws....since we cant explain from where they come from There is not consciousness... Since we dont know what consciousness is There are infinite universes.... Since we cant explain fine tuning This materialism of denial, that have to revert to words play to deny the obvious (and sell some books) is just silly.

[@kos-mos1127]

Religion and metaphysics resort to word play science use data. Scientist are loose with words and some time ignore the linguistic meaning. Science is about doubt and they are trained to doubt everything including their own assumptions. Voltaire once said doubt is an unpleasant position while certainty is an absurd position.

[@francesco5581]

@@kos-mos1127 this guy is a scientist now ? There is no data in what he says, just philosophy and experimental psychology. The word "science" and "scientist" are used (and abused) out of their true meaning.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@francesco5581 Psychology is a social science that studied the mind and human behavior. Yes Bruce Hood is a scientist.

[@francesco5581]

@@kos-mos1127 thats why i wrote that the word science and scientists are abused. My plumber is scientist too then because he empirically study how to fix my WC. Or my aunt that try to improve her spaghetti sauce.

[@kos-mos1127]

@@francesco5581 A plumber is not a scientist by definition. Psychology is a science because it follows an empirical method and behavior can be directly observed. A plumber install and repair water, gas ad other piping fixtures in homes so by definition not a scientists. Your aunt improving a recipe for spahgetti sauce is just modifying an existing recipe so obviously not a scientists.

[@chyfields]

I read that Japanese religious practitioners were having this very same conversation a few hundred years ago. They decided to resolve the debate by agreeing to the amputation of limbs and sensory perceptions to see at what point they no longer identified as the same 'self'. I am not sure whether they came to any shareable conclusions.

[@bluelotus542]

Selves are eternal units of consciousness simultaneously one and different from the supreme consciousness, God, and connected to him by a loving, devotional exchange of service.

[@comanchio1976]

You're joking or high, surely?

[@bluelotus542]

@@comanchio1976Maybe the topic is too high for you?

[@kos-mos1127]

The self is not part of some one consciousness. I doubt God is or a supreme consciousness is real.

[@erikvegapeinado]

Amazing as always

[@maxwellsimoes238]

They are murky in the neurociêncie. They minds about real world isnt consistence reality. Possibilities process self conscieness paved way in honest description failed. He minds concern selves it looks like in bussiness magazines. Bussiness vídeo keep out fundamental neurociência.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

The basic way I break down illusion is a sick outlook. Looking out sickly. So then that sounds like that perception needs fixing needs a doctor a physician to help heal. Which Jesus Christ has given and fulfilled that vision of healing.

[@jamesroberts9872]

I disagree with this guy's conclusions

[@Anonymous-uf6xo]

Its what sage like buddha ,jk,ans ug said that whwt we call seld it just creation od mind or brain.seem like human also said it but it's the same. In mediatiin u van experince that

[@clehner1]

Check out Stanislaw Lem's "Atomic Resurrection" (a philosophy teacher of mine, Ulrich Blau, published a paper related to that, too), you end up with an unsolvable paradox if you try to even define what the 'self' really is.

[@projectmalus]

Lem is the best!

[@stephenwalsh3629]

Excellent !

[@therubbersouls]

The mind, whether conscious or "unconscious" is separate from the brain.

[@ericjohnson6665]

Self is the same as personality. Personality is a constant. It doesn't change, although infirmities can cloud it. And personalities recognize other personalities, even over long distances of time being apart. Characteristics may evolve over time, but thought patterns, vocal patterns and the like, vary very little. And personality is a gift from the primary personality, the Divine Father.

[@kos-mos1127]

Personality comes form the latin persona which translates to mask. We can take on different personas depending on the social situation. So there is no constant personality or self it is always fluid and ever changing. Most philosophers answer by saying you are the Cosmos perceiving itself and your world is created in your mind. The sense of separateness creates contrast and contrast creates existence. Without consciousness or life the Cosmos would be meaningless because there would be no concepts, categories, ideas or anything.

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

So what you're trying to challenge is people's consciousness. God's word already does that. The knowledge of Good and evil. Solomon touched on a lot of that very well very poetically. The delusions of this life the illusions the vanity. Only true wisdom is found in the word of God.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

What makes water wet? That would be a reasonable question. Stop injecting hocus pocus into commonly understood words like "self" & "other". Geez Louise.

[@spacesciencelab]

Looks like they are in the tardis lol

[@timothygeorge2530]

If one lives in emptiness ego disappears thus one realizes all is one and one is all there is no inherent existence there is interdependence and as all, it is passing

[@SimpleBach]

I can’t believe he’s so interested in physics and art but hasn’t probed music too much…..maybe he’s waiting because it’s such an interesting topic.

[@johnyharris]

Under the influence of most psychedelics the self evaporates. It appears to be a very fragile and illusory construct.

[@kevinarcher7701]

Where do people come up with this crap???

[@jellojiggle1]

Hogwash.

[@hamentaschen]

No. Hogwash is when your momma takes a bath.

[@glenngerardus51]

there is a sense of self but is there a self?