680: Kant himself versus Hume

An important difference between Hume (1711-1776) and the brain reductionists I mentioned in my previous lecture, is that they look for different things in different places. 

       

Hume is searching for  the Self in sensory experience, the brain reductionists seek the Self in the brain. 

      

But there is also an important agreement: both of them think we must be able to demonstrate the existence of the Self based on the perception. 

      

For Hume this perception is a form of inner perception, also known as 'introspection’. 

    

For brain reductionists, it involves the perception of brain activity, for example by brain scans. 

   

But how convincing is the assumption that the Self can be perceived?  

   

A criticism of this idea is found in the work of Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). Kant responds to Hume's conclusions. 

      

He completely agrees with his statement that we do not encounter the Self in sensory experience, but this does not mean that it does not exist. 

      

According to Kant, Hume doesn’t find the Self because he is  looking in the wrong place. The self is not the kind of thing you can find in perception like a chair or a table. 

     

Imagine: You are in a meadow and you see a white horse standing there. According to Hume, a number of experiences are taking place at a rapid pace: 

    

the experience of something that is white, has a horse shape, makes a horselike sound, and so on.

    

Hume is right that you will not find your Self in the horse experience; You only have the experience of a white horse. 

      

But Kant asks the following question: What makes it actually possible that you experience this white horse as such? 

    

His suggestion is that there must be "something" that brings together these loose experiences as it were and giving it a meaning. 

     

After all, you have the experience of a white horse, not a white thing + horse shape + horse sound, and so forth. 

     

Indeed, we would not have any idea of ​​the concept of horse (or "table", "human", etc.) if the different experiences would not be united in one way or another. 

     

According to Kant, there must be something, a sort of anchor point, which forges these Ioose  perceptions into a unity of shape, color, size, place, time, etcetera

     

and which causes us to not see a collection of loose horse parts (four legs , two ears, a head, body  and a tail) that are white in color. 

   

According to Kant, this 'something' is the Self. Kant calls this a transcendental Self 

   

because it is not something that can be found in sensory experience, but is something that allows those experiences. 

     

The Self makes us see the horse as a whole, even if it is partially hidden behind a tree. We also see this horse as a whole over time. 

   

When it starts to run, we experience it as an object that moves, rather than as countless objects in different places. 

   

The Self makes us see the 'total picture'. The Self is thus not an object of the experience, but its precondition to experience. 

    

In other words, without the existence of a Self, we could not have any experience at all. 

      

Although Kant's argument is addressed Hume, it also applies to contemporary brain reductionists.

     

We do not actually find ourselves in the brain, and we can not prove its existence on the basis of a brain scan. 

   

But that does not mean that it does not exist. There must be "something" that enables us to interpret brain activity in a meaningful way, 

   

which means that we can assign a certain meaning to a brain scan. That 'something' is the Self.

    

Thank you for your attention again…^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

John Searle: The Mystery of Consciousness (1997)
Antonio Damasio: Self comes to Mind (2010)
L.de Bruin/F. Jongepier/ S.de Maargt: IK, Filosofie van het Zelf (2017)

The Discussion

[13:19] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...the floor is yours :-)

[13:19] CB Axel: So where does he think that "something" that is the Self is?

[13:19] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like in self = the whole of it?

[13:19] herman Bergson: in th emind, CB

[13:20] herman Bergson: That is why Kant called it transcendental...it is not a physics phenomenon

[13:20] CB Axel: I thought his Self was what interpreted brain activity, not the brain itself.

[13:21] herman Bergson: Kant's Self is the organizer of our sensory perceptions...make them meaningful..

[13:21] roos Gartner is offline.

[13:22] CB Axel: OK

[13:22] herman Bergson: an old fashoined movie is a strip of tranparent material containign a series of images...

[13:23] herman Bergson: when played at speed it looks like moving objects...

[13:23] Zorba (code2.hax): persistence of vision

[13:23] Mikki Louise (mikkilouise) is online.

[13:23] Zorba (code2.hax): done by the brain

[13:23] herman Bergson: But that is not how the brain works accoring to Kant...

[13:23] herman Bergson: we see objects ..for instance people walking by

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax): [13:21] herman Bergson: Kant's Self is the organizer of our sensory perceptions...make them meaningful. <= can include persistence of vision, no?

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes...Zorba..the brain organnizes sensory input....

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:24] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): Kant never saw a movie I guess

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax): I guess I don't see how this contradicts Kant

[13:24] herman Bergson: and this organizer is called teh Self by Kant

[13:24] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:24] herman Bergson: this faculty of the  brain....

[13:25] herman Bergson: like it organizes our memories of our past...make us a person throughout time

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): simply put, there is a limit how fast the brain can process things and if you update fast enough it can not differ a sequence of images from continous motion

[13:25] Zorba (code2.hax) nods

[13:25] Now playing: Andreas Staier - BACH - Partita No.5 in G,BWV829

[13:26] Kimmy Jannings (kim1987.wirefly) is offline.

[13:26] herman Bergson: So...if we have learnt something sofar...we now know that it makes no sense to lookfor the  Self as some ontological entity...

[13:27] herman Bergson: Yet it is a meaningful part of ourselves...

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:27] herman Bergson: It means...we can look at ourselves

[13:27] Dien (djdien.bailey) is offline.

[13:27] herman Bergson: Like there is me and my shadow there is me and myself...

[13:28] Zorba (code2.hax): well different conditions will affect the number of consciousness events a person will have during a period of time, like for example when there's certain drama it's believe that the 'frame-rate' or consciousness events (as called by some) are increased casing a person to believe  that time slows down, like in a car accident.

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it is recursion, when I refers to I i refer to myself

[13:28] herman Bergson: I watch myself and take care of mysef  everyday...

[13:28] Zorba (code2.hax): trama*

[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes bejiita...it looks like some recursive rpocess..

[13:30] CB Axel: Cogito ergo sum

[13:30] Oceane (oceane.madrigal) is offline.

[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Zorba.... a car accident you hardly remember...

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:30] CB Axel: There is no self, only my thoughts.

[13:30] Ladyy Haven (ladyy.haven) is offline.

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): there is no self, only self reference

[13:31] herman Bergson: Interesting issue here CB....

[13:31] herman Bergson: You say ...MY thoughts....

[13:31] herman Bergson: so there are thoughts and someone who calls them MINE :_)))

[13:31] herman Bergson: so...there is a Self :-))

[13:32] herman Bergson: the owner of the thoughts :-))

[13:32] CB Axel: I guess we could all be just random thoughts out in the ether. °͜°

[13:32] Zorba (code2.hax): doubtful, CB

[13:32] herman Bergson: You are not my thought, CB...you are CB :-))

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i understand this recursion thing well because i use it in programming a lot, for ex i = I+1 is recursive because i use the same variable on both sides thus self refering to it and then adding to it

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): I = I+1

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): very simple example

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the same way that you can refer to yourself

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the whole of you

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it must be like that

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and that is self

[13:34] herman Bergson: Well...guess Kant made his point here today :-))

[13:34] herman Bergson: SO...if you ha ven't any questions or remarks....?

[13:35] herman Bergson: Thank you all again....^_^

[13:35] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:35] herman Bergson: Class dismissed.....

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again ㋡

[13:35] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu next time

[13:35] herman Bergson: in other words..

[13:35] herman Bergson: PARTY TIME !!!! ^_^

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hee

[13:35] bergfrau Apfelbaum: Thank you Herman & Class :-)

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

679: Sorry.....there is no Self...

Ok, according to Metzinger there is no self. He isn’t the only one who thinks so. Victor Lamme, a famous neuroscientist, shares his opinion.

   

Lamme suggests that in our brain the only boss in our brain, and not an intangible self that controls our brains in one way or another. 

  

What we call “the Self”, Lamme says, is nothing more than a “chatterbox” that tries to justify our choices and actions by retrospectively compiling a good story.

  

However, the real causes of our choices and actions have long been in our brain, and we have nothing to say about it. 

  

Metzinger and Lamme defend a form of 'brain reductionism', reducing the self to the brain.

   

Brain reductionists do not deny that we can have the experience of a self. 

  

On the contrary, they argue that people often think that they themselves are the cause of the choices they make or the actions that they make. 

  

What they deny, however, is that this experience is proof of the real existence of a real self. 

  

But is it true that we encounter it in the experience? According to the Scottish philosopher David Hume (1711-1776), that is not the case at all. 

  

In his “Inquiry Concerning Human  Understanding” (1739) he gives the following description of his quest for self:  

  

-quote-“When I think deeply about myself what I call myself, I always stumble on some concrete experience of heat and cold, of light or dark, love or hate and pain or pleasure. 

  

I can never catch myself without perception, and can never perceive anything except perception. 

  

When my perceptions are absent for some time, like in a deep sleep, I do not notice anything about myself, and it is true that it does not exist at the moment.”-end quote-

  

What Hume points out here is that, although we smell, feel and see, we never encounter an 'I' or 'self' in these perceptions. 

  

The human mind, Hume suggests, is a kind of theater where different experiences make their appearance, come on, slip back, or fuse. 

  

But he immediately points out that this is actually a misleading metaphor. The theater really does not exist. 

   

In addition, there is no viewer in this theater: there is no "I" that perceives these perceptions. I am nothing but a collection, a 'bundle' of loose perceptions 

  

that follow each other at high speed and are in a state of constant motion. 

  

There is no unity here because all perceptions differ and there is no numerical identity as they constantly change. 

  

Hume concludes that the self can not exist as something that remains the same throughout the time.

     

The interesting to Hume is that he tries to explain how it is that we are inclined to see the self as a stable and continuous thing. 

  

He points to the human imagination, which means that we keep the objects we perceive the same despite the fact that they are strictly not the same. 

  

In particular, if the object of our perception changes gradually and unmistakably, according to Hume, we tend to think

   

that in that case it has remained the same over time, for example, a young plant that grows into a big oak. 

  

If the object changes suddenly and quickly, we think that it has become another object. But, Hume says, in both cases there is ultimately a change. 

  

The only difference is that in the first case we imagine that something is something that remains the same throughout the time. 

  

But that does not mean that this really also exists as a stable and constant object. 

  

We can of course admit to our tendency, and maintain that the objects we observe, despite their differences, are constantly the same, but with that we would fool ourselves

   

In other words, we may have the belief, that  in us is a stable and constant something, which we call our “Self”, 

but that is an illusion.

    

Thank you for your attention again…^_^

The Discussion

[13:23] herman Bergson: The main point here is...

[13:24] herman Bergson: that both..Hume and the neuroscientists assume that we can/have to be able to sensory experience / see the Self

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): makes no sense to me

[13:25] herman Bergson: the notorious...IT MUST BE SOMEHTING....assumption

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm head spinning but i think i grasp most of it

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): if it is not visible

[13:25] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): does not exist ?

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): interior self?

[13:26] herman Bergson: ok Gemma...

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): they say?

[13:26] herman Bergson: Take this....

[13:26] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i see what they are sayig

[13:26] herman Bergson: You go to the university and visit all buildings...

[13:26] herman Bergson: faculty this and that...they all exist...

[13:26] herman Bergson: then you say...nice...but where is the university?

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): all of it is the university

[13:27] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): parts of it

[13:27] herman Bergson: yes...Bejiita...

[13:27] Ciska Riverstone: well but tomorrow it might be the town hall  because the university moved

[13:27] herman Bergson: but then you ask....does the UNIVERSITY exist....

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): eeeh yes it does

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i think

[13:28] herman Bergson: SHow me...:-)

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hume thinks not i guess

[13:28] herman Bergson: you can't

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): is it because of the knowledge of the brain at his lifetime?

[13:28] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think so

[13:28] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): its the building called university

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that group of buildings = the university

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): the whole body of everything is the university

[13:29] CB Axel: A university is more than the buildings.

[13:29] herman Bergson: We'll get to this in a next lecture....

[13:29] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): does not have skin

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): it is what it is used for

[13:29] herman Bergson: but this is an interesting feature of our way of thinking....

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and what is in it that makes it a university

[13:29] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm indeed

[13:29] CB Axel: Buildings, students, professors, ideas...

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): yes

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): especially when you do nto really have go to the university anymore can do it all on internet

[13:30] herman Bergson: one the one hand we look for a real object....

[13:30] herman Bergson: and on the other hand a word may not refer to a real object...and yet we assume what it refers to exists

[13:30] Ciska Riverstone: that’s the point gemma

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:31] CB Axel: Hmmm. Ideas. Ideas are not objects, so they do not exist?

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:31] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): there is even one university near by that actually delivers diplomas in the big bus

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): (system crash) SCREEEECH!

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): lol

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ideas are indeed not physical but they still exist

[13:31] herman Bergson: The quintessential issue here is the meaning of the word "exist"

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hmm interesting ideas indeed

[13:32] Ciska Riverstone whispers: exist vs experience?

[13:32] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hume  believed what he  believed

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but i guess everything does not have to be physical to exist

[13:32] herman Bergson: that is the point Bejiita....

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:33] herman Bergson: sometimes "exist' refers to physical presence...

[13:33] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): sometimes

[13:33] herman Bergson: sometimes it does not, but yet we assume existence of what the word refers to

[13:34] herman Bergson: so the university "exists"....just like the building of the Department of Philosophy does

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the building plus what you use it for , physical + non physical thing define what it is

[13:34] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:35] herman Bergson: an empiricist takes words primarily as refering to physical observable objects....

[13:36] herman Bergson: but he gets nervous when he has to deal with more abstract terms...like university...

[13:36] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): well we went that route before

[13:36] herman Bergson: then he gets into ontological problems....

[13:36] herman Bergson: yes we often did Gemma...

[13:36] herman Bergson: Guess you may graduate now :-))

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yep

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako) ♪♥♪APPLAUDS!!!♪♥♪

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:37] Ciska Riverstone has to sneak out - thanx a bunch everyone thank you herman

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye ciska

[13:37] herman Bergson: but we see this happen all day around us....

[13:38] herman Bergson: people who take terms as refering to really existing htings...

[13:38] herman Bergson: religions are good at that for instance

[13:38] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:38] herman Bergson: Why fight for freedom and democracy....

[13:39] herman Bergson: but plz...bring me  this democracy thing....so I know what I fight for for instance :-)

[13:39] herman Bergson: does democracy exist???

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): not really

[13:39] CB Axel: Not in the US.

[13:39] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as a concept yes, as a physical thing no

[13:39] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): many facets of it do

[13:39] herman Bergson: Indeed Bejiita....

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): and unfortunatley not in many places

[13:40] herman Bergson: and a philosopher then asks...what is the ontological status of a concept?

[13:40] herman Bergson: is it only just in your head?????

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): a way to do a certain thing i guess

[13:40] herman Bergson: or in the heads of may people...???

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): to acomplish a goal

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): or something like that

[13:41] herman Bergson: If so...why...and what does that mean

[13:41] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): dint think I can define it more then that

[13:41] herman Bergson: ok...our refuge.....the definition of a term...

[13:42] herman Bergson: But there we have to agree on the definition..

[13:42] herman Bergson: another philosopher's job :-)

[13:43] herman Bergson: Yet it is a constant fight we have to go though with what we call reality...

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): very true

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:43] herman Bergson: anfd we can not give in or give up....

[13:44] CB Axel: I fight with reality all the time.

[13:44] CB Axel: And lose.

[13:44] herman Bergson: That is the quitessence of philosophy :-)

[13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe you should fight another reality, CB?

[13:45] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:46] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): perception becomes reallity sometimes

[13:46] herman Bergson: Hume , Lamme and Metzinger look for something observable, which they can point at as The Self...

[13:46] herman Bergson: Maybe that is the wrong approach...

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it seems so

[13:47] herman Bergson: Psychologically what we experience in ourself as our Self is more a kind of organizing principle of the mind

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that makes sense

[13:47] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): and it progresses as we age

[13:48] herman Bergson: so the self is as real as the mind is...

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess you can say that

[13:48] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): that can be a definition of it

[13:48] herman Bergson: and nobody has seen the mind yet...but everyone assumes that the mind exists :-))

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess we had better assume that

[13:49] herman Bergson: well...sometimes you are in presidential doubt Gemma :-))

[13:49] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): i guess

[13:49] CB Axel: Self is what we call our thoughts and memories when we don't know what else to call them.

[13:49] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): good cb

[13:50] Quistis Hoorenbeek (quistis.shippe) is online.

[13:50] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): self = recursion back to well yourself

[13:50] herman Bergson: Maybe the perosnal narrative, that Dennett means...CB

[13:50] CB Axel nods

[13:51] herman Bergson: Well..I guess we paved the way for the coming lectures :-))

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i guess so

[13:51] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): when i say I i refer to self but when i say you im not referring to myself

[13:51] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well i refer to someone elses self then you can say

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but self is always you and no one else

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): as said it is recursion

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): basically

[13:52] herman Bergson: ok..:-)

[13:52] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): well time for me to check a thing out cu next time

[13:53] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hope to be hre tuesday

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:53] herman Bergson: I guess we are done for today...unless you still have a question or remark left..:-)

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): this gets better and better I think

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): some head wrangling

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hehe

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): you think of things in ways you normally dont

[13:53] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): like that university thing

[13:54] herman Bergson: yes Bejiita...that's what philosophers often do :-))

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah ㋡

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): thats what I like with it i guess

[13:54] herman Bergson: The goal is to get things clear...

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): makes things more interesting

[13:54] CB Axel: That's an elusive goal.

[13:54] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:54] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes cb

[13:54] herman Bergson: Well....thank you all again...nice discussion....

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu soon all

[13:55] CB Axel: It seems the more we think about these things, the muddier it all becomes.

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hopes beertje does not blow away

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): thank you Herman :)

[13:55] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye for now

[13:55] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:55] .: Beertje :. (beertje.beaumont): smiles:)

[13:55] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:55] herman Bergson: Class dismissed :-)

678: Where is the Self.....?

In the previous lecture, we focused in particular on the question what will keep you the same throughout  time. 

  

Now we’ll make a start discussing the question of what the Self is actually and what we are looking for. 

  

Can we understand it as something that can be disconnected from body and brain, and can it exists on its own? 

   

In a way some people believe it can by defining man as a combination of Body, Mind and Soul, 

  

where the soul is the actual quintessence of man and will continue to exist after disappearance of body and mind.

Or is this not the right way to think about yourself? Is it a "thing" which we can perceive and which can occupy space? 

  

Or is it really different? We’ll first look at a number of statements by philosophers and scientists 

  

who claim that it does not exist at all, despite the fact that we may have the experience that we are a self or have a self. 

  

Subsequently, we’ll treat the classical argument of David Hume (1711 - 1776), who claims that we do not experience a self in sensory experience itself. 

  

Next we’ll have a look at the reaction of Immanuel Kant (1724 - 1804). According to Kant Hume is quite right as he claims we can not find our Self in our experience. 

  

However, that does not mean that it does not exist. The Self is not given as an object of experience, but is a prerequisite for experience. 

The philosopher Gilbert Ryle (1900 - 1976), used the term 'category error' to explain, what goes wrong in the discussion about the self. We’ll look into this too, of course.

    

The philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942 - ..) argues that we must understand the Self as a linguistic construction: a 'narrative center of gravity'.  Interesting to find out what that might mean.

     

Next, we’ll look at the role of the body based on the ideas of the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908 - 1961). 

   

And, finally, we’ll discuss the tension between science and practice, and what this means for the reality of the self.

The reality of the Self? Has it got any reality? If we like to believe the German philosopher Thomas Metzinger (1958 - ..) we are mistaken.

   

In "Being No One. The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity“ (2003),he states that no one has ever been a self or had a self. 

If you want to hear his opinion, the title of his next book is even more telling: “The Ego Tunnel - The Science of the Mind and the Myth of the Self “ (2009)

   

According to Metzinger, brain research shows that this is simply an illusion. In the brain we do not find anything that seems to be a self. 

  

Some brain scientists endorse this idea. They claim that it should ultimately be understood as a collection of brain processes.

   

It is of course very kind of these brain scientists to tell us, that we are waisting our time on something that does not exist.

   

However, as a philosopher, I would reply, that we still have this word and believe, that we can use that word in meaningful ways.

   

So, for a start, these brain scientists may be right, if you assume that the self is not some singular “thing” which sits in the brain.

    

But hadn’t we already concluded that this idea of a “thing like self” was highly questionable? Let’s find out what the self can be, if it is not a thing….

   

Thank you for your attention….. ^_^

Main Sources:

MacMillan The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2nd edition

Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.iep.utm.edu/

 http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html

John Searle: The Mystery of Consciousness (1997)
Antonio Damasio: Self comes to Mind (2010)
L.de Bruin/F. Jongepier/ S.de Maargt: IK, Filosofie van het Zelf (2017)

The Discussion

[13:18] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no one ever makes a final decision!!!!!!!!!

[13:19] herman Bergson: You should be happy about that Gemma...

[13:19] herman Bergson: Otherwise life would become so dull  and boring

[13:20] herman Bergson: Suppose we knew EVERY ANSWER...

[13:20] herman Bergson: What about our curiosity then?

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): id say self is more of a concept, refering to yourself

[13:21] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): recursion

[13:21] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): i think that is why i always liked history

[13:22] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): it has happened

[13:22] herman Bergson: In a way it is indeed...

[13:22] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:22] herman Bergson: But there you have the interpretation of WHAT happened Gemma....

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): yes but it is simpler

[13:23] CB Axel: There are more than one version of every historical event.

[13:23] herman Bergson: Not two historians agree about WHAT happened :-))

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): to decide which view you wish to take

[13:23] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): with these philosophers it is never ever easy

[13:23] Ciska Riverstone: heheh true Gemma

[13:23] herman Bergson smiles

[13:23] herman Bergson: I don’t do it on purpose Gemma :-))

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate) GIGGLES!!

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ...LOL...

[13:24] CB Axel: I agree with Bejiita that self is a concept.

[13:24] herman Bergson: yes...and the analysis focuses on the reference....

[13:24] Ciska Riverstone: yes I think that thats what Dennett hints at too

[13:24] CB Axel: It's just a way of talking about a group of brain processes.

[13:24] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that sounds good

[13:24] herman Bergson: like the word "chair" refers to the thing you sit in....you can see and feel it...

[13:25] herman Bergson: so we wonder what the concept "Self" refers to...

[13:25] CB Axel: More like "thought." It's not something you can see or feel, but we have to call it something.

[13:25] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:26] herman Bergson: This discussion already looks in the direction of Ryle...

[13:26] herman Bergson: One thing is clear....

[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: its a concept run by biological action reaction systems -  experience of all kinds and inner linguistic concepts about those experiences.. thats how I see it somehow

[13:26] herman Bergson: the word "chair" refers to an observable object you sit on....

[13:27] herman Bergson: that does not imply that EVERY word refers in that way to something in that way...

[13:27] herman Bergson: Maybe the Dennett interpretation is attractive :-) We'll see

[13:28] herman Bergson: But what we really KNOW is that it apparently  is not something  tangible inside ourselves

[13:28] herman Bergson: Nevertheless...as I said...

[13:28] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): its not a physical thing

[13:28] herman Bergson: we can use the word Self meaningfully

[13:29] herman Bergson: Here we run into the same mystery Bejiita...

[13:29] herman Bergson: the brain is a physical thing......the mind is a......???

[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: I still would refer to it as  a concept somehow

[13:29] herman Bergson: a feature of the brain....

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): the closest explanation i guess is the brain is the hardware and the mind is the software running on it

[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes Ciska....I agree....it still feels like "something"

[13:30] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but still

[13:30] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ooh back to the computer analogy

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hard to grasp since we don’t know whats going on inside

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we dont know in detail really how the brain works

[13:31] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but thats the best idea i can imagine

[13:31] herman Bergson: we hardly know how the brain works Bejiita

[13:32] herman Bergson: But the computer analogy is not the best one

[13:32] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): maybe not but the only similarity i know to compare with that is graspable

[13:32] herman Bergson: it is even factual wrong if you agree with the Chinese Room argument of Searle, we discussed :-)

[13:33] CB Axel: Oh, yeah. I forgot about that.

[13:33] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:33] herman Bergson: check your notes ^_^

[13:33] herman Bergson: Or did your goat nibble on the pages :-)

[13:33] CB Axel: Yes. Computers can put words together in an order that makes sense, but it doesn't understand the words.

[13:34] herman Bergson whispers: Very true CB :-)

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): true, it blindly follows code that manipulate electrical switchs but it can not understand or feel anything what it is doing

[13:35] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but we can

[13:35] CB Axel: So how did we get so lucky?

[13:35] herman Bergson: it uses syntactical rules on symbols  only....

[13:35] herman Bergson: our mind deals with content...with semantics

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): also computers are digital, we are analog, computers see only on and off, they cant "see" the analog information that this stream of 1 and 0 represent like we can

[13:36] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we see images hear sounds

[13:36] herman Bergson: And we must do it all ourselves ^_^

[13:37] herman Bergson: so lots of work for a Self here :-)

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:37] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi) takes a humble bow

[13:37] CB Axel: Hello, John.

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): but my conclusion now is self is a concept, not a thing

[13:37] herman Bergson: hello John..

[13:37] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Hello

[13:37] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): hi John

[13:37] CB Axel: Right, Bejiita.

[13:37] herman Bergson: True bejiita

[13:37] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): hellooo

[13:38] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Hi there

[13:38] herman Bergson: And we have to figure out how to interpret this concept...understand its semantics

[13:38] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): that will serve us best

[13:38] herman Bergson: because..whatever any philosopher says....

[13:39] herman Bergson: I still have the feeling I can meaningfully talk about myself ..

[13:39] herman Bergson: I can even look at myself and disagree with myself

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): me , myself and I

[13:40] herman Bergson: yes Gemma and my shadow too

[13:40] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ah  yes that too

[13:40] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ah

[13:41] herman Bergson: It's kind like that...me and my shadow :-))

[13:41] herman Bergson: no me no shadow :-)

[13:41] Sandia Beaumont is offline.

[13:42] herman Bergson: Ok.... any questions or remarks left?

[13:42] herman Bergson: If not...thank you all again for your participation....^_^

[13:42] CB Axel: Maybe our bodies are the shadows of the self.

[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Thank you

[13:42] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ....

[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): no new ones

[13:42] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥

[13:42] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): thank you all

[13:43] CB Axel: Thank you, Herman.

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): nice again

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): ㋡

[13:43] Gemma (gemma.cleanslate): bye for now

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): cu

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako) whispers: ㋡

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: thank you herman & class

[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): :9

[13:43] CB Axel: See you all Thursday.

[13:43] Particle Physicist Bejiita (bejiita.imako): we do

[13:43] herman Bergson: See you CB

[13:43] John Howard Cassio (sticaatsi): Bye all

[13:43] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye all:-) see you