The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

Compassionist
Guru
Posts: 1020
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:56 pm
Has thanked: 770 times
Been thanked: 135 times

The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head

Post #1

Post by Compassionist »


User avatar
Swami
Sage
Posts: 510
Joined: Mon Dec 27, 2010 1:07 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Post #31

Post by Swami »

shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote: Awareness and intellect are not the same but can work with each other. With awareness, we experience or perceive. With the intellect, we examine our experiences to determine truth. But keep in mind that intellect is not the only way to attain truth or knowledge.
Knowledge is the currency of the intellect just as fragrance is to one's sense of smell. You cannot attain an appreciation for the fragrance of roses without a nose, nor will you appreciate that sense through the sound it makes in a light breeze.
I accept what the intellect is, but it being a basis for knowledge does not make it the only basis. Christians would claim that divine revelation is one basis. I also claim that being able to experience something without the filter of the mind is also a basis (an objective basis at that) for knowledge.
shnarkle wrote: Word salad. Transcendence isn't transcendent if it doesn't transcend knowledge, or experience.
This view does not work. If transcendence involved transcending knowledge then how would we ever know that something is transcendent? Your view is unnecessarily narrow way of defining transcendence.

The idea of transcendence assumes that there is a normal or ordinary way of things and something that can go beyond those ordinary ways. This is all that it requires. I was referring to transcendent knowledge as being truths that have to do with an existence and perception that goes beyond the mind and body (mind/body being the ordinary way of existence and perceiving).
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote:You are bringing up one way of gaining knowledge.
Not really. I'm pointing out that nothing can be known except THROUGH the faculty of the intellect. I'm not referring to what is known, or through whatever other channels are used as well. I'm just pointing out that it is possible to smell a rose without knowing it is a rose, or even knowing that you're smelling it. You can smell a rose and not be aware that you're smelling it as well. But you cannot know anything unless you are using your intellect. You cannot know anything without it. It doesn't matter that all of one's senses are being employed as well. I'm simply pointing out a fact. Remove the intellect, and whatever knowledge you think you have is pure nonsense. You can't think without your brain.
You may not be able to think without a brain but you can experience without one. You want me to accept that the intellect is the only basis for knowledge and I am disagreeing with you. I can also know things through experience.
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote:As I mentioned earlier, there is also knowledge gained through direct experience.
No, that is direct experience. That is not knowledge. Whatever you may know about what you experienced directly can only be known with the intellect. You might as well claim that sight is gained through the nostrils. You are conflating one faculty with another.
I am still not convinced. Another way to understand this is to look up the difference between 'experiential knowledge' (or even practical knowledge) and 'theoretical knowledge'. The following article might help:
Experiential knowledge is knowledge gained through experience, as opposed to a priori (before experience) knowledge: it can also be contrasted both with propositional (textbook) knowledge, and with practical knowledge.[1]
…
In the philosophy of mind, the phrase often refers to knowledge that can only be acquired through experience, such as, for example, the knowledge of what it is like to see colours, which could not be explained to someone born blind: the necessity of experiential knowledge becomes clear if one was asked to explain to a blind person a colour like blue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_knowledge
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote:I can accept that there are times when we experience no object of consciousness but I don't believe that this shows that pure consciousness also involves not being aware of anything.
Pure consciousness, as you have already admitted has no object to be conscious of. To then say pure consciousness could be aware OF SOMETHING is to contradict your first claim. The OBJECT of one's awareness is WHAT they are conscoious OF. (note: I don't know how to use itallics or embolden words so I use caps. I'm not 'yelling')
This goes against the definition I posted. First, I said that the self is consciousness. Then I referred to objects as being those things independent of self or consciousness. So when I said that consciousness can exist with no objects, that did not mean that there's no awareness of anything at all. I meant there's no awareness of anything "independent" of consciousness or self.

Even as pure consciousness, you are always experiencing or aware of "being" or existence, which also involves "self" (or consciousness), and all of these are inherent to consciousness. It seems you're trying to use a concept of pure consciousness that is really pure existence or it's pure (or absolute) nothingness, in either case you'd have to do away with consciousness.

Here is a middle ground position that you can perhaps agree with. How about the claim that the self is both the subject and object? Or we can even say the self is an object to itself.
shnarkle wrote: Your claim is that pure consciousness can be aware of something. Pure consciousness is the subject. "Is aware", is the predicate and something is the direct object. Pure consciousness, by definition cannot be aware OF anything without negating the meaning of pure or complete consciousness. One can be conscious of something, but one cannot be consciousness of anything. It's not only illogical, and contradictory, it's grammatically incorrect. Unless you're claiming to be the consciousness of the object you're aware of; e.g. a rock, leaf of grass, clouds, etc. This can't be what you mean as you have already denied that possibility, no?
You are correct if we only consider grammar. But when we factor in logic, definition, and experience, we have to also consider the ability for consciousness to reflect on itself.

You always point of that what I'm aware of points to an object, but you fail to consider that what comes after the word "of" in my point is also the subject. In other words, I can be conscious of consciousness or the subject is aware of the subject or aware of itself. To be an object it has to be something other than itself.
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote:In the state I'm referring to you are experiencing consciousness. You are experiencing existence or being.
The definition of experience and the definition of consciousness are not synonymous. Experience requires one to do or have the experience as well as what is experienced. To be conscious requires one who is conscious as well as what they are conscious OF, but consciousness not only doesn't follow these conditions, it can't. When an object stampedes into consciousness, consciousness is obliterated as one becomes conscious of something as well as the fact that there is an observer to be conscious of the object. There is no observer/observed dichotomy in pure awareness or pure consciousness.
Consciousness is same as awareness. Being aware involves having perception and perception involves experience.
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote:So when I say that I am conscious of myself, I am referring to being conscious of consciousness.
And you are still contradicting yourself. Consciousness cannot be objectified in any meaningful way. Being aware of yourself is to be aware of the illusion, not pure consciousness. When the illusion collapses, there is no observer or anything to observe. This doesn't mean one can no longer observe anything, it just points out that pure awareness contains no object. The object can only be part of the illusion which isn't real, as you have already pointed out yourself:
Not when the object is also the subject. If it would not be grammatically correct to explain in this way, then I suggest we propose a different way to explain or admit that language can not capture this at all.
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote:Being aware "of" or experiencing is inherent to consciousness.
No it isn't. You have put the cart before the horse again. You are also contradicting yourself as well. The objects of consciousness are, as you have already admitted; not real. How could they then be inherent?
If by objects, you're referring to things that are independent of self, then I accept. But pure consciousness does not exist in a vacuum. It involves perception or experience, and that's by definition. This is why I believe that you're confusing pure existence with pure consciousness.
shnarkle wrote:
Swami wrote: - nothing outside of it but the awareness is still there. There can not be an absolute nothingness unless you take away awareness and existence altogether
Again, you're not saying anything here. You needn't point out that nothing doesn't exist. You also seem to believe that awareness is localized, but in relation to what? We can project whatever movie we please onto the big screen, but the only thing that is real is the screen itself. All those places, locales, and events that follow chronologically one after another aren't real. They aren't "there". Only the screen is, and it is blank.
An example of localized awareness is an awareness or focus on one thing or place. This type of awareness is what we experience with our body. It's also the type of awareness that is experienced during some OBEs.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #32

Post by Overcomer »

shnarkle wrote:
The description provided in the link is more than enough to get the ball rolling.
It is my understanding that opening posts are to ask a question to engender conversation. The OP didn't do that. That's why I asked for more information. I wanted Compassionist to offer up a specific topic, not just post a link.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #33

Post by Overcomer »

Thanks for the lengthy response and explanation, Compassionist. I appreciate it. You wrote:
We evolved naturally in a reality which is not fine-tuned for life because life is incredibly rare. If reality was fine-tuned by God for life, life would be everywhere. Life is in fact so rare that we have not found any life on any other solar system despite there being many trillions of stars and planets.
Actually, the fine-tuning of the universe (called the teleological argument) is one of the arguments for the existence of God. It's because the likelihood of the universe being able to sustain life as it does, we cannot believe that it happened by chance. The odds against it are too great. See here:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... principle/

Compassionist wrote:
We shouldn't take things personally because nothing is personal - even our sense of self is an illusion created by impermanent processes.
So your sense of self as a vegan pacifist is just an illusion then? So what are you really?

Compassionist wrote:
As far as I know, all our choices are determined by our genes, environments, nutrients and experiences. We are not and cannot be free from causality. We do what we find rewarding and refrain from doing what we find punishing. For example, I am a pacifist vegan because I find it rewarding to know that I have refrained from causing suffering and death to sentient biological organisms. Others are omnivores because they find it rewarding to eat meat and they don't care about the suffering and death of sentient biological organisms. Different people find different things rewarding or punishing because they have different genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.
Are you then a relativist when it comes to morality? If one person finds one thing "rewarding" and another doesn't, does that mean we have no right to criticize someone for their "rewarding" experience? Does that mean you have no right to criticize someone who eats meat? Your statement that "they don't care about the suffering and death of sentient biological organisms" suggests a judgment against them. But if they are programmed that way as you suggest, then they can't help it. So how can you criticize them?

Compassionist wrote:
So, given the above two lists, how am I free? I am clearly not free. My will is not free, it is constrained by my genes, environments, nutrients and experiences.


You must have been free to create the lists, weren't you?

Compassionist wrote:
I am a prisoner causality from conception to death, as are you and every living thing. We are all doomed to be conceived, to suffer and to die.
So life is hard and then we die, eh?

What a nihilistic view of life! Do you think that, if that is all there is, people are right to commit suicide to get out of it?

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #34

Post by shnarkle »

[Replying to post 31 by Swami]
Awareness and intellect are not the same but can work with each other.
Sure, but when one begins speaking of rational or reasonable awareness, this can only come through the intellect.
But keep in mind that intellect is not the only way to attain truth or knowledge.
If it is kept in mind, then it is filtered exlusively through the mind.
I accept what the intellect is, but it being a basis for knowledge does not make it the only basis.
It's the only rational basis.
Christians would claim that divine revelation is one basis.
There is no essential difference between the mystic and a direct connection to reality.
I also claim that being able to experience something without the filter of the mind is also a basis (an objective basis at that) for knowledge.
A non-rational basis. I don't know what you mean by an "objective basis", or the point.

If transcendence involved transcending knowledge then how would we ever know that something is transcendent? Your view is unnecessarily narrow way of defining transcendence.
There is no way to know transcendence. By definition, transcendence cannot be known. Transcendence transcends all that can be known, or experienced. It's not my narrow definition. It's the accepted definition. Transcending knowledge necessarily transcends the knower as well as what can be known.

Transcendence cannot be intelligible. As you have already pointed out consciousness is more comprehensive than that of intelligibility. As the Ancients pointed out, "intelligence is nothing other than consciousess covered by the veil of ignorance". Even though we may not understand it, the unintelligible does exist. Transcendence is beyond that as well.
The idea of transcendence assumes that there is a normal or ordinary way of things and something that can go beyond those ordinary ways.
Things can't be or become transcendent. By definition, transcendence is beyond things, not to mention ideas as well.

Here's the definition:
Transcendent: adj. beyond normal limits, surpassing, of transcendent beauty. Being outside or going beyond the limits of possible human experience; (in Kant) going beyond the limits of possible knowledge; being above and independent of the limitations of the material universe.
1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: "fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor" (National Review).
3. Philosophy
a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.
Transcend: v.t. to be or go beyond the limits or powers of, to transcend belief; to surpass, excel, it transcended all our hopes; (philos., theol., of God or a god) to be above, separate from or independent of (experience, the material universe)
be or go beyond the range or limits of (something abstract, typically a conceptual field or division).
I was referring to transcendent knowledge as being truths that have to do with an existence and perception that goes beyond the mind and body (mind/body being the ordinary way of existence and perceiving).
More contradictory word salad Again, by definition, trancendence is beyond knowledge. There is no such thing as transcendent knowledge due to the fact that the definition precludes the possibility of knowledge of anything transcendent, or anyone transcendent who could know anything.
You may not be able to think without a brain but you can experience without one.
I never claimed otherwise.
You want me to accept that the intellect is the only basis for knowledge and I am disagreeing with you. I can also know things through experience.
I will clarify. One can be rational or irrational, and both of these options are within the realm of the intellect. Then there is the non-rational which completely bypasses the intellect altogether. This is the distinction I am referring to. So while one may have an awareness, or you could say a conscious awareness of something; or go further to a point of pure awareness/pure consciousness. At that point, the intellect has been left behind as well as the so-called objective world and anyone who could possibly observe it. It is impossible to understand anything at this point due to the fact that understanding is not fundamental or foundational to reality. Reality is fundamental, and nothing can stand under reality.
when I said that consciousness can exist with no objects, that did not mean that there's no awareness of anything at all.
I agree. I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm pointing out that the definition of consciousness is not the definition of conscious, and one can be conscious of things, and those things are what one is conscious of, i.e. the object of one's conscious awareness. This is not the same thing as pure consciousness. Pure consciousness does not need to be aware of anything to be purely conscious. However, pure consciousness is not synonymous with a conscious awareness of something. The thing one is aware of is not pure consciousness. See the problem?

"You" can be conscious of yourself, or some object around you, e.g. the chair you're sitting in, the thoughts running through your mind, etc., but our language betrays the reality that "you" and what is yours, i.e. "self" can't be synonymous. If it is yours, it is not you. The observer sees what can be possessed, but what is possessed is not the observer. You are not what you possess. The verb to be is not the genitive of possession. Conflating the two only spotlights the grammatical and linguistic contradiction.
Even as pure consciousness, you are always experiencing or aware of "being" or existence, which also involves "self" (or consciousness),
To say that pure consciousness involves pure consciousness isn't saying anything.
It seems you're trying to use a concept of pure consciousness
No, concepts are not inherent in pure awareness. Concepts are found only within the intellect. I am pointing out that the intellectual or rational mind is bypassed in pure consciousness. Therefore there can be no conceptual reflection. Pure consciousness requires no mediator as the subject/object dichotomy no longer exists. The rational mind necessarily must separate the observer from what is observed. Pure awareness/pure consciousness is a unified whole, so there can be no consciouness (OF) as that requires the one who is conscious as well as what they are conscious of. When they are unified into one, that separaton no longer exists. I'm not really disagreeing with what you mean. I'm simply pointing out that one doesn't need to contradict themselves in order to convey reality. I'm also pointing out that symbols, or abstract constructions of the mind are incapable of conveying reality.
that is really pure existence or it's pure (or absolute) nothingness, in either case you'd have to do away with consciousness.
Not following your point here, or your reason for this conclusion.
Here is a middle ground position that you can perhaps agree with. How about the claim that the self is both the subject and object? Or we can even say the self is an object to itself.
You're relying upon western thought and language to describe a unified whole that our language necessarily must separate. The subject can never be exhausted in the predicate. Eastern thought simply juxtaposes the two, e.g. Jesus is the messiah becomes "Christ Jesus".
we have to also consider the ability for consciousness to reflect on itself.
Then it is conscious of itself. I don't deny that. I'm simply pointing out that when one becomes conscious of themselves, they are no longer in a state of pure consciousness, or pure conscious awareness. They are now consciously aware of something objective. While you may not mean to say this, the fact remains this is what you're posting.
You always point of that what I'm aware of points to an object, but you fail to consider that what comes after the word "of" in my point is also the subject.
I'm not failing to consider it at all. I'm the one who is pointing out that you are conflating the subject with the object. I am also pointing out that your awareness need not prevent or preclude you from articulating grammatically correct, or logically consistent sentences.
In other words, I can be conscious of consciousness or the subject is aware of the subject or aware of itself. To be an object it has to be something other than itself.
To be conscious of anything is to objectify what you are conscious of; in this case yourself. You're pretending that this conceptual creation exists objectively. Descartes assumed one's existence can be established by an eptistemilogical activity. The thing known is not the thing who knows, or the thing knowing. This is useless in establishing identity, and the proof, which you have alluded to repeatedly is in the awareness, apart from any understanding or intellectual reflection. The reflection is not reality, but a reflection of reality, and can never establish or mediate reality. Simply claiming "you" are who you think or believe you are doesn't establish identity or prove much of anything. Objectifying yourself is equally useless.
The object can only be part of the illusion which isn't real, as you have already pointed out yourself:
Not when the object is also the subject.
Self knowledge does not consist in the knowledge of any objects. We are subjects, not objects. Objective knowledge is not that by which anything can be known. You cannot know the knower of consciousness. Identity is not an objectifiable category.
If it would not be grammatically correct to explain in this way, then I suggest we propose a different way to explain or admit that language can not capture this at all.
This is what I was pointing out earlier. You quite simply can't use the faculty of the intellect to describe reality. The intellect is derived from reality, and can only represent reality through symbols.
But pure consciousness does not exist in a vacuum.
It kind of does. That's why they refer to it as "The Void".
It involves perception or experience, and that's by definition.
Perception or experience of what? Consciousness? You're assuming an observer now, aren't you? The observer perceives. The observer experiences, but pure conscious awareness transcends the subject/object dichotomy altogether. This is not to say pure awareness becomes transcendent.

This is why so many people will point out the "sense" of liberation they feel. They no longer exist. Their identities have been absorbed into pure awareness. There is no sense of separation, not because the subject is the object, but because there simply is no subject/object to begin with. There is no "other".

A prime example is the golden rule. Even though it is expressed inefficiently, it still conveys the fact that when one loves others as oneself, it isn't actually saying that one loves others the same way they love themself, but that they are the "other". Christ comes along and takes it to the next level by pointing out that the other is Christ, or perhaps that Ultimately, there is no "other".
This is why I believe that you're confusing pure existence with pure consciousness.
I don't see why. I'm not confusing things that exist objectivly with consciousness, nor do I assume that just because consciousness exists, it is existence itself. So how am I confusing the two?
An example of localized awareness is an awareness or focus on one thing or place. This type of awareness is what we experience with our body.
No doubt, and that is not pure awareness. That is an abstract construction of the mind associating with a physical body. It is nothing but a persistent delusion.

shnarkle
Guru
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2013 10:56 am

Post #35

Post by shnarkle »

Overcomer wrote: shnarkle wrote:
The description provided in the link is more than enough to get the ball rolling.
It is my understanding that opening posts are to ask a question to engender conversation. The OP didn't do that. That's why I asked for more information. I wanted Compassionist to offer up a specific topic, not just post a link.
Keep reading, and I suspect you will find that we're well past that difficulty.

User avatar
Dimmesdale
Sage
Posts: 776
Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
Location: Vaikuntha Dham
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 89 times

Post #36

Post by Dimmesdale »

I don't think there is a "you" in one's head the same way there is a homunculus (tiny person) peering out of your eye sockets. That is nonsense, and does not answer the question of why there is experience (because, obviously, the homunculus would need it's own homunculus and so on ad infinitum).

That said, what we do know is that there is experience. And experience is always predicated on an experiencer, is it not? Otherwise who is having the experience? What meaning would "experience" then have? There is an "I" that is the recipient and/or former of experience. To deny this would denude the word "experience" of any meaning!

So there is an "I." There is the sense of an I, of existence, whenever we experience anything. Are you experiencing redness? The experience of redness then is impinging upon and accentuating your very sense of being. Are you experiencing anxiety? That anxiety is referring to a sense of self, just as you are more aware of yourself when shy and giving a speech in front of others rather than just laying by yourself in bed. An "I" exists. Without it, there is no point in saying we experience anything.

Post Reply