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

[Compassionist]

Please read The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head. Thank you.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to post 8 by Compassionist]

None of that has anything to do with this OP. The point is that the "you" inside your head believes all sorts of things that also belong on that same screen projecting "you". All of these images of "you" are on the same screen with everything else which is also no more real than "you". Only the screen is real, but until you stop looking at the projections, "you" will continue to believe that not only 'you' are real, but "your" ideas as well.

I'm simply pointing out that a few of the posts submitted after the OP are moving off topic and contradicting the OP. Did you read the book or just the dust jacket?

The book is about the bundle theory of consciousness - something which is supported by my experience of meditation which allows me to transcend the narrative mode of the mind and experience reality as it is. If you have done meditation, you will know that thoughts and emotions are not reality. They just come and go and can be transcended with practice. We shouldn't identify with our thoughts and emotions. "I think, therefore, I am." is wrong. There is no 'I' and thoughts and emotions are impermanent constructs of the brain.

[Swami]

The description provided in the link is more than enough to get the ball rolling. The guy is pointing out that the idea of a self is nothing but an idea, or a conglomeration of ideas. Are you an idea? Are you the product of what you're thinking? If not, then who are you, or as he says, who do you think you are? He's pointing out that 'you' can't get away from your own ideas of who you are, and if we're honest, these individual constructions of our own mind are simply not who we really are.

People tend to believe that thinking is something we will to do, but the fact is that it is, more often than not; something that is happening to us, or just simply happening autonomously.

I have not read the book but based on descriptions I agree with the main point that we have the wrong idea of "self".

The self is not the body. I think many religions have no problems with this view so far. The self is also not the mind. I think it's here that many atheists and religions start having a problem. I think the author would agree with me here but for different reasons.

My reasons for accepting that I am not my mind is because I have experienced states of consciousness that does not involve mental input. So what's left? Am I consciousness? Just a point of pure awareness? I think this is closer to the truth but even this does not go deep enough when you consider that consciousness is part of a larger phenomenon, a universal phenomenon.

So in my view, there is no real "individual" self. Instead, we are everything in that we're all part of this universal consciousness.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

I object to the notion "there is no you!"

People who have lost themselves have the feeling that there is no "you" inside the head but they are schizophrenics, I believe! I think this can be demonstrated by interviewing these patients.

However, the "you" inside your head can be restored by psychiatric medical treatment and this can be demonstrated too!

Thus, the OP's claim is not scientific!

Please... Don't lose your head to evil! Cheers!

Schizophrenics have more than one "you", those without this sense of identity have a dissociative disorder.

The OP's claim is not only scientific, it is easily proven with the numerous citations from any half way decent textbook on early childhood development. Look at an infant if you want to change your beliefs. They are born without anything close to an identity, and this is the case for the next few months until they begin to construct one to go along with the one their parents have of them already.

[shnarkle]

My reasons for accepting that I am not my mind is because I have experienced states of consciousness that does not involve mental input.

When you say this are you referring to a state that does not involve your intellect?

So what's left? Am I consciousness? Just a point of pure awareness? I think this is closer to the truth but even this does not go deep enough when you consider that consciousness is part of a larger phenomenon, a universal phenomenon.

I would like to agree with this idea, but your claim of just consciousness or pure awareness is probably not taking into consideration that there is nothing to be conscious or aware of. One can be aware of all sorts of things without ever involving their intellect, but pure awareness can't be aware of anything. It's the difference between pure awareness and awareness of whatever it's aware of. To be aware of something is not pure awareness.

So in my view, there is no real "individual" self. Instead, we are everything in that we're all part of this universal consciousness.

Aren't you still conflating things with awareness or consciousness? All of these things are not part of a universal consciousness at all. The universal consciousness may be aware of all these things, but it isn't these things itself.

[William]

[Replying to post 3 by]

shnarkle: The guy is pointing out that the idea of a self is nothing but an idea, or a conglomeration of ideas. Are you an idea? Are you the product of what you're thinking? If not, then who are you, or as he says, who do you think you are? He's pointing out that 'you' can't get away from your own ideas of who you are, and if we're honest, these individual constructions of our own mind are simply not who we really are.

William: Within this idea is the Human Instrument we each are experiencing.
Often the 'who I am' is solidly linked with the self-identifying as said Human instrument.
Most people tend to leave it at that.
But 'who are we really?'

I discovered through consistent use of a device created for the purpose of communication through ideomotor effect,, that the answer to the question is positively "I am far more than I think I am".

It didn't immediately start out that way, but was discovered to be the case after much ground-work was done in preparation for the reveal, and that process took at least a couple of years of almost daily use.

Essentially ideomotor phenomena can enable the studious - through proper use - to connect with what appear to be 'other' entities, and for me this amounted to starting out communicating with a very basic entity with limited communication skills, and eventually graduating from there with entities more advanced in the art of communication.

In the end, I was informed that I had actually be communicating with aspects of my SELF, to which - in my ordinary framework of Human experience - I had regarded as 'other entities'.

Through correct use of Ideomotor Effect, the individual learns how to engage with that mysterious thing called 'subconscious' 'unconscious' and 'super-conscious'.
Some call it 'higher self' or 'GOD'.

The illusion of self in regard to 'the mind' through the Human experience, is but a very tiny portion of who each of us really ARE.


I ended up creating quite a few Message Boards for this purpose, the first of which ended up looking like this:



Indeed, it is role-play, and the individual learns to understand that they are not the center of the universe, but rather - an aspect of a far larger being, used as a type of satellite for the purpose of - not only gathering data through the Human Experience, but also someone on the edge of things who is entitled to join the 'Inner Circle' as acceptance and recognition of ones True Self becomes the 'new normal'.

Essentially in Role-Play, we tiny selves engage with 'others' who are really all aspects of the One Entity. The illusion of thinking that the 'self' is that tiny individual thing called a 'Human', brings its own troubles within the framework of the 'Stage' where the role-play is being enacted...here on a Living Planet, literally in the middle of 'nowhere'.

[Swami]

My reasons for accepting that I am not my mind is because I have experienced states of consciousness that does not involve mental input.

When you say this are you referring to a state that does not involve your intellect?

More than just intellect. There is no cognition involved. NO thoughts, no feelings.

So what's left? Am I consciousness? Just a point of pure awareness? I think this is closer to the truth but even this does not go deep enough when you consider that consciousness is part of a larger phenomenon, a universal phenomenon.

I would like to agree with this idea, but your claim of just consciousness or pure awareness is probably not taking into consideration that there is nothing to be conscious or aware of. One can be aware of all sorts of things without ever involving their intellect, but pure awareness can't be aware of anything. It's the difference between pure awareness and awareness of whatever it's aware of. To be aware of something is not pure awareness.

I can not agree with this. There are times that we experience nothing. Western science accepts this (refer to the link below). In the state I'm referring to you are experiencing consciousness. You are experiencing existence or being.

Deep, dreamless sleep has long been thought of as a state of unconsciousness, but in a new paper, several researchers suggest that consciousness may not completely disappear when the mind recedes into deep sleep.

https://www.livescience.com/56788-dream ... tates.html

So in my view, there is no real "individual" self. Instead, we are everything in that we're all part of this universal consciousness.

Aren't you still conflating things with awareness or consciousness? All of these things are not part of a universal consciousness at all. The universal consciousness may be aware of all these things, but it isn't these things itself.

Under my worldview, nothing beyond consciousness is real. The physical world is like a dream. We wouldn't know that anything exists if it were not for consciousness and that's because everything we perceive is in consciousness. No one can point to something that we experience that does not involve are needing to be aware of it. Because of this it's time that we start thinking that's it's not only our perceptual experience that is based on consciousness, but also all of reality is as well.

[Aetixintro]

Schizophrenics have more than one "you", those without this sense of identity have a dissociative disorder.

The OP's claim is not only scientific, it is easily proven with the numerous citations from any half way decent textbook on early childhood development. Look at an infant if you want to change your beliefs. They are born without anything close to an identity, and this is the case for the next few months until they begin to construct one to go along with the one their parents have of them already.

Infants are as self-centered as it gets. True, they have no language, say common names and not their own name yet either.

As with the naming of length as one meter or one foot, it doesn't mean that length doesn't exist in the World either. It does, with confidence. Anything else isn't physics.

Likewise, the infants crave for mother's milk and have a natural connection to the mother as well. This natural feeling for the mother and the father stays with this new-born for the rest of the infant's life. This suggests a "you" inside the child. If there was no "you", it would all be mechanistic. Anything would go.

[shnarkle]

My reasons for accepting that I am not my mind is because I have experienced states of consciousness that does not involve mental input.

I'm not sure this is saying much of anything. What else would you use to accept an intellectual proposition other than reasons? I'm not claiming that you are your mind.

When you say this are you referring to a state that does not involve your intellect?

More than just intellect. There is no cognition involved. NO thoughts, no feelings.

So you don't know anything. This is what I suspected as well. I've experienced the same thing numerous times myself, except for the fact that there is no self to know in the first place. We're effectively talking about nothing as if it exists.

So what's left? Am I consciousness? Just a point of pure awareness? I think this is closer to the truth but even this does not go deep enough when you consider that consciousness is part of a larger phenomenon, a universal phenomenon.

I would like to agree with this idea, but your claim of just consciousness or pure awareness is probably not taking into consideration that there is nothing to be conscious or aware of. One can be aware of all sorts of things without ever involving their intellect, but pure awareness can't be aware of anything. It's the difference between pure awareness and awareness of whatever it's aware of. To be aware of something is not pure awareness.

I can not agree with this. There are times that we experience nothing.[/quote]

I agree. That's what I just posted which you seem to think you disagree with. I'm saying the same thing when I point out: " there is nothing to be conscious or aware of. "

Western science accepts this (refer to the link below). In the state I'm referring to you are experiencing consciousness. You are experiencing existence or being.

If there is a "you", then you are not just consciousness, but conscious OF something; i.e. "YOU".

Deep, dreamless sleep has long been thought of as a state of unconsciousness, but in a new paper, several researchers suggest that consciousness may not completely disappear when the mind recedes into deep sleep.

https://www.livescience.com/56788-dream ... tates.html[/quote]

I completely agree!

Under my worldview, nothing beyond consciousness is real.

Yep! And therefore whatever one is conscious of, isn't real including "you".

The physical world is like a dream. We wouldn't know that anything exists if it were not for consciousness and that's because everything we perceive is in consciousness.

I disagree. You're back to conflating knowledge with consciousness again. We wouldn't know anything exists were it not for our intellect. Without the intellect it is impossible to know anything. We can be conscious of all sorts of things and never know any of them if or when our intellect is inactive, dormant, incapacitated, etc. We don't need the intellect to be conscious of anything.

No one can point to something that we experience that does not involve are needing to be aware of it.

Now you're doing the exact opposite and claiming one's awareness must be involved to point to something that simply doesn't even exist in the first place. We do it all the time. We have no awareness of the fact that what we know isn't real, and we do this not with awareness, but through our intellect. This is why I asked if it involved your intellect. You can't claim pure awareness, and then turn around and claim an awareness OF anything, especially when what you're aware of is only what you know.

Because of this it's time that we start thinking that's it's not only our perceptual experience that is based on consciousness, but also all of reality is as well.

I once again have to disagree due to the fact that mediating reality through one's thought processes only separates us further from reality. We need to stop thinking altogether. The other senses are of no use in mediating reality either.

There is nothing more immediate than reality. What you understand about reality is not reality. It's simply what you know. Not only is what you know about reality filtered through your intellect, it isn't reality at all. It's a derivative of reality.

Likewise by definition, pure awareness can't be aware of anything. Pure awareness knows nothing, and if it be aware of anything, including itself, it isn't pure. The same holds for consciousness. Pure consciousness isn't conscious of anything. To be conscious OF is not pure consciousness. There is no "of" in pure consciousness.

[shnarkle]

Schizophrenics have more than one "you", those without this sense of identity have a dissociative disorder.

The OP's claim is not only scientific, it is easily proven with the numerous citations from any half way decent textbook on early childhood development. Look at an infant if you want to change your beliefs. They are born without anything close to an identity, and this is the case for the next few months until they begin to construct one to go along with the one their parents have of them already.

Infants are as self-centered as it gets. True, they have no language, say common names and not their own name yet either.

As with the naming of length as one meter or one foot, it doesn't mean that length doesn't exist in the World either. It does, with confidence. Anything else isn't physics.

Likewise, the infants crave for mother's milk and have a natural connection to the mother as well. This natural feeling for the mother and the father stays with this new-born for the rest of the infant's life. This suggests a "you" inside the child. If there was no "you", it would all be mechanistic. Anything would go.

Your assumptions, while they seem to have a logic of their own, don't match the evidence. Infants do none of these things of their own volition. These are all inborn autonomous functions. Sure, they're "self centered", but this doesn't negate the fact that they have no identity to speak of. They know nothing of a separate self, separate from the world around them.

The proofs are numerous. You can place an infant in front of a mirror day after day for months and they will never recognize the image looking back at them. A mark is placed on their foreheads to let us know when they first begin to identify with their own reflection. We know when they begin to form an identity because they will start to reach for that mark or stamp or whatever they've used to differentiate the child from everyone else.

There quite simply is no sense of self whatsoever until this abstract construction of thee mind begins to form one.

It isn't confined to infants either. People with amnesia, or dissociative disorders experience this same phenomenon. They have no idea who they are. They don't identify with their own body. Then there are the numerous accounts of so-called "realized beings" who describe this exact same phenomenon.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by Compassionist]

Moderator Comment

Telling people to read is not a debate, but this thread can stay for now since a conversation has started.

Please see the Rules for starting a debate thread.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.