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]

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.

I totally agree with you. I have experienced dissociative states during traumatic experiences e.g. being raped when I was five years and nine months old. Also, during deep meditation, I have experienced a cessation of the narrative mode - during which the mental chatter of verbal thoughts stops and there is an ineffable state of transcendence which is totally liberating.

[Compassionist]

[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.

Thank you for letting me know. I will keep this in mind for my future posts.

[shnarkle]

I have experienced dissociative states... I have experienced a cessation of the narrative mode - during which the mental chatter of verbal thoughts stops and there is an ineffable state of transcendence which is totally liberating.

Yep, meditation is a great way to stop the chatter, or at the very least become aware of it in the first place; been there, done that; bought the t shirt.

I was sitting in my living room a few years ago, and suddenly became aware that there was nobody in the room; and then not even me or the room. There was just empty awareness.

It came only after spending years becoming more and more aware of the constant hurricane of subconscious thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. that emerged, and then flooded my brain pan. After a while, that raging rampaging stream begins to fade into the background. Its still there, but "you" and "your" focus turns away from it, and sometimes slowly, sometimes abruptly, you just drop into the Void at which point there is no "you".

Ultimately it isn't liberating at all due to the fact that someone has to be liberated and that someone is gone. So there's no one to liberate in the first place. Other than the abstract idea, there simply is no "you" to begin with.

I've got a topic I just posted showing that "God" doesn't exist, but the same is just as true for "you" or "me". We don't exist either. There is no referent for God other than the word itself, but just because we associate ideas or words with physical bodies doesn't then mean that they are identical; they clearly aren't.

[Compassionist]

I have experienced dissociative states... I have experienced a cessation of the narrative mode - during which the mental chatter of verbal thoughts stops and there is an ineffable state of transcendence which is totally liberating.

Yep, meditation is a great way to stop the chatter, or at the very least become aware of it in the first place; been there, done that; bought the t shirt.

I was sitting in my living room a few years ago, and suddenly became aware that there was nobody in the room; and then not even me or the room. There was just empty awareness.

It came only after spending years becoming more and more aware of the constant hurricane of subconscious thoughts, emotions, feelings, etc. that emerged, and then flooded my brain pan. After a while, that raging rampaging stream begins to fade into the background. Its still there, but "you" and "your" focus turns away from it, and sometimes slowly, sometimes abruptly, you just drop into the Void at which point there is no "you".

Ultimately it isn't liberating at all due to the fact that someone has to be liberated and that someone is gone. So there's no one to liberate in the first place. Other than the abstract idea, there simply is no "you" to begin with.

I've got a topic I just posted showing that "God" doesn't exist, but the same is just as true for "you" or "me". We don't exist either. There is no referent for God other than the word itself, but just because we associate ideas or words with physical bodies doesn't then mean that they are identical; they clearly aren't.

I can relate to your experience. When I said 'liberating' - I was talking about being liberated from the mental chatter of thoughts and emotions. I love meditating because of the transcendence it creates.

[shnarkle]

I can relate to your experience. When I said 'liberating' - I was talking about being liberated from the mental chatter of thoughts and emotions. I love meditating because of the transcendence it creates.

I hear what you're saying. The thing I've noticed over the years is that people treat me better. People that are ordinarily extremely rude, annoying, nasty, etc. are now respectful. It's like I do all this work to calm my mind, and everyone around me suddenly becomes enlightened. It is bewildering, but not unwanted either. I've known people who were the most obnoxious and profoundly ignorant to suddenly articulate some sublime and insightful wisdom to me out of nowhere.

It's like the saying that you can never really return home. You touch that transcendent state, but when you return the whole world is completely different. Ultimately, "you" can't return. We're in the world, but not of the world anymore.

[Compassionist]

I can relate to your experience. When I said 'liberating' - I was talking about being liberated from the mental chatter of thoughts and emotions. I love meditating because of the transcendence it creates.

I hear what you're saying. The thing I've noticed over the years is that people treat me better. People that are ordinarily extremely rude, annoying, nasty, etc. are now respectful. It's like I do all this work to calm my mind, and everyone around me suddenly becomes enlightened. It is bewildering, but not unwanted either. I've known people who were the most obnoxious and profoundly ignorant to suddenly articulate some sublime and insightful wisdom to me out of nowhere.

It's like the saying that you can never really return home. You touch that transcendent state, but when you return the whole world is completely different. Ultimately, "you" can't return. We're in the world, but not of the world anymore.

Fascinating. Thank you for sharing your experience.

[William]

shnarkle: I've got a topic I just posted showing that "God" doesn't exist, but the same is just as true for "you" or "me". We don't exist either. There is no referent for God other than the word itself, but just because we associate ideas or words with physical bodies doesn't then mean that they are identical; they clearly aren't.

William: I think that becoming one with The Void is ultimately pointless. You might as well just want to be dead - as in 'none existent'.

The thing about being an 'idea of existing' is that it provides experience for the 'you' and the 'you' can shape that experience and even impact on the environment of that experience.

All that The Void offers, is death of the 'you' - which I would suppose would be something that some 'yous' yearn for, because the experience of BEING, 'weirds them out', or has been too traumatic for them to bear up well within, or some such other reasons...

Ironically, The Void itself might not really offer anyone actual non existence, and might just absorb the old 'you 'which the old 'you' didn't like to be, and spit out an entirely new 'you' in which to deal with the experience of things.

[Swami]

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.

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. Having a "direct experience", that is, experience reality without any filters of the mind, is also another way to attain knowledge, especially transcendent knowledge.

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.

You are bringing up one way of gaining knowledge. As I mentioned earlier, there is also knowledge gained through direct experience. The second way is gained by experiencing or perceiving while in a pure conscious state.

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.

The first part of your point has been covered. I don't accept the second part regarding "no self" but I will address it where you go into more detail later in your post.

I can not agree with this. There are times that we experience nothing.

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. "

I don't follow the connection. 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. Part of the function of consciousness is to be aware of something. I will go into details later on as you explain more but let me lay out some basic definitions:

- An object of consciousness would be observing or perceiving something that is independent of yourself.

- Pure awareness or consciousness is an ontological concept and a type of perception. In the ontological sense, it involves existing as a point of awareness - isolated from the human body and mind. As a perceptual type, it is simply observing without thinking, feeling, analyzing, etc.

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".

Under my view, the "I" is consciousness in an ontological sense. You are pure consciousness; you are just an observer. So when I say that I am conscious of myself, I am referring to being conscious of consciousness.

Under my worldview, nothing beyond consciousness is real.

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

I explain this in my previous response. "I" am real in that I am consciousness.

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.

I would not go as far as saying that nothing exists beyond consciousness. I only say that nothing is real except for consciousness. Illusions and dreams exist but they are not real. The illusion that we have is perceiving the objects of consciousness as being real.

Another point you make is about intellect. I explain this earlier in the post by saying intellect is only one way of knowing.

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.

Earlier I defined what pure consciousness is from an ontological and perceptual standpoint. Being aware "of" or experiencing is inherent to consciousness. One error in your view may be that you try to make the inherent parts as something separate. Even when we accept that at times there are no objects of consciousness, I am simply referring to nothing in relation to consciousness - 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.

[Compassionist]

Swami, please consider the following:

All I have are qualia. Not all qualia are equal. For example, you and I both see the qualia of the words on this message. I can confirm to you that these words exist. Likewise, you can confirm to me that these words exist by replying to this post. However, both you and the computer I am using could be part of an intricate simulation designed by aliens to torment me with philosophical questions about what is real and what is not. I have no way of knowing whether you and my computer are really real. As I said, all I have are qualia. That's all I can be certain about. Everything else is questionable. Some qualia are painful e.g. falling on ice hurts. Some qualia are pleasurable e.g. eating a vegan ice-cream. It is possible that my perceived reality (all of my qualia) is actually objectively real but it is also possible that they are simulated. I have no way to be 100% certain about the ultimate nature of reality. I can only be 100% certain about my perceived reality e.g. falling on ice hurts, eating vegan ice-cream is tasty, etc.

There are dualists who believe that we are immortal souls which interact with the brain. They believe that this soul is either reincarnated (e.g. Hinduism) according to karma or that this soul is resurrected in heaven or hell (e.g. Christianity and Islam).

There are monists who believe that the mind is what the brain does and our sentience is a product of the brain and when the brain dies, our sentience ceases to exist forever.

What is the truth? All I have are qualia. Going by everything I have experienced in my life so far, only suffering and death seem to be guaranteed in life as a sentient organism.

Are there gods, angels, demons, heaven, hell, etc. which can't be perceived by us? Maybe. Maybe not. Is there an invisible and totally undetectable dragon in my room? How would I know? The burden of proof is on the claimant who claims that something exists. All I have are qualia and the same goes for all sentient organisms such as you (if you are real and not just part of an intricate simulation).

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 28 by Swami]

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.

Having a "direct experience", that is, experience reality without any filters of the mind, is also another way to attain knowledge, especially transcendent knowledge.

Word salad. Transcendence isn't transcendent if it doesn't transcend knowledge, or experience. You're playing fast and loose with the meaning of words here. What you probably mean to say is that there is nothing more fundamental than reality (itself). Nothing is more immediate than reality. Experience requires one who is having the experience as well as what they are experiencing. Transcendence goes beyond experience. There is nothing to experience and no one to have the experience.

Again, awareness is not dependent upon knowledge. Just becuase the intellect is involved does not mean it is mediating reality, or as you say "filters" reality. But this is beside the point. Whatever one knows must be known through the intellect. Awareness is not knowledge. One can be aware of all sorts of things, and one can be knowledgeable of all sorts of things, but pure awareness is not aware of anything, just as pure consciousness is not conscious of anything, and pure knowing can't be known and what is purely and completely, or exclusively known, can never know anything.

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.

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.

The second way is gained by experiencing or perceiving while in a pure conscious state.

And if it is truly pure, you know nothing. The intellect can't be involved.

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.

I'm not addressing your beliefs. I'm addressing what you're posting, and what you've posted is a contradiction. 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')

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?

- An object of consciousness would be observing or perceiving something that is independent of yourself.

One can be conscious of an object, but one cannot be consciousness of an object. That is essentially no different than claiming you are the consciousness of the object you are conscious of.

- Pure awareness or consciousness is an ontological concept and a type of perception.

Nope. concepts are born in the brain. They are thoughts. Pure awareness doesn't involve the intellect at all. Pure awareness isn't filtered through the mind. You've already pointed this out yourself.

In the ontological sense, it involves existing as a point of awareness - isolated from the human body and mind. As a perceptual type, it is simply observing without thinking, feeling, analyzing, etc.

Sure, but then you're still contradicting yourself as none of that involves concepts, and you just defined an ontological state as nothing more than an idea. You're conflating ideas with ontological states.

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.

If there is a "you", then you are not consciousness, but conscious OF something; i.e. "YOU" as well as anything else "you" may be conscious of. Whatever it may be, it is the object of your conscious awareness, and therefore cannot be pure consciousness.

Under my view, the "I" is consciousness in an ontological sense. You are pure consciousness; you are just an observer.

There is no observer due to the fact that observation requires not just an observer, but something to observe as well. If you are conscious OF WHAT you are observing, then you are not pure consciousness. You are conflating the subject with the predicate. There is no predicate with pure consciousness. There is no object of pure consciousness because pure consciousness does not allow an observer or anything that may be observed. The entire subject/object dynamic collapses into pure awareness.

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:

Under my worldview, nothing beyond consciousness is real.
"I" am real in that I am consciousness.

The reality of the whole is not the whole of reality.

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.

I would not go as far as saying that nothing exists beyond consciousness. I only say that nothing is real except for consciousness.

A distinction with no effective difference. No one is contesting that ideas are real ideas or that they exist as anything other than ideas.

Illusions and dreams exist but they are not real. The illusion that we have is perceiving the objects of consciousness as being real.

Or that they exist as anything other than real illusions.

intellect is only one way of knowing.

It is the only way of knowing anything. You can smell a rose, but you can't know a rose without involving the intellect. Go ahead and turn off your intellect as you have done so often in the past, and tell us all how does one know anything without the intellect being involved. You can't even begin to explain it without using the intellect. You can't explain anything simply by looking, smelling or touching an object. The intellect involves thinking, understanding and knowledge. The intellect does not involve smelling, seeing, hearing, or touching except figuratively, and we're not playing with words when the intellect isn't involved to begin with.

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?

One error in your view may be that you try to make the inherent parts as something separate.

No, I'm pointing out that the subject is not the object. You're suggesting that what one is conscious of, which is the object, is now somehow inherent in the subject, which is consciousness. You are also conflating the meaning of conciousness with conscious.

Even when we accept that at times there are no objects of consciousness, I am simply referring to nothing in relation to consciousness

Sure, and I note with enthusiasm that you are now using the grammatically correct form of the word as well.

- 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.