Those who do not ‘see’ their own consciousness: can argument help?

I have to admit I am somewhere in the middle, or outside of the two sides of this debate...

I think that, as impossible and ridiculous as it seems, both "There is a Self" and "There is no Self" are false in some way.

Similarly, I suspect that "I am God" and "I am not God" are false in some way.

My guess is that Buddha had something like this in mind, because it is recorded that Buddhists and Jains would join Hindus in arguing against the ancient materialists who thought there was no Survival at all.

I've read the old Irish would say "A sadness has come upon me" rather than "I am sad" because the emotion was not by necessity a part of the Self. I think this detachment is, to some degree, part of Jeff Schwartz's method of dealing with OCD.

This seems to be thread the path between full identification of emotions/desires/cravings/etc with the Self and the idea that the Self is nothing but the "bundle" of different mental fragments.

One way of seeing this is that we don't have absolute control of the stream of feelings/thoughts/desires/etc in the way that the electrons that partly constitute a pen [have positions that are] only predictable stochastically. However just as we can move then pen and thus shift the indeterministic likelihood of where we expect the electron's positions to be at any given moment we can also shift our attention to alter the contents of the thought[ & feeling] stream.

Beyond that I am wary of looking at causation in the seeming "physical" world and implying it could work for mental causation. Feelings, thoughts, reasons...and so on don't have quantifiable force vectors or any other mathematically modeled equivalents from which a single outcome can be easily deduced. 

Even with "physical" causation it's important to note the circularity of abstracting "force" from measurements and then using the same abstraction to explain where the measurements came from.

Physics can be viewed in "Humean" terms, meaning there is no real causal "oomph" just patterns that we trust enough to exploit for our technology, medicine, etc. However it is more difficult to assume this could apply to mental causation, because this means the Pythagorean Theorem or Modus Ponens has no more truth value than lingual gibberish since logical arguments have to follow a proper semantic chain.

A Humean could try and argue that logic has no real truth value but is likely to use said logic rather than just mutter random sounds, essentially denying even their belief in what they claim.

All to say I would hesitate to think the non-physical is of the same nature as the "physical" which - at least in some sense - can be said follow "Natur[al] Laws" and is reducible into parts...though even those parts, as in particles, seem to arise from holistic fields?

Jim, you're talking nonsense. Experience is contingent on a self (experient), not the other way around.

This seems true because of your experience with the physical universe. However, consciousness is not part of the physical universe, it is outside of space and time. The laws that govern it are not something we can assume by analogy to physical laws.

I have to admit I am somewhere in the middle, or outside of the two sides of this debate...

I think that, as impossible and ridiculous as it seems, both "There is a Self" and "There is no Self" are false in some way.

What does it mean for "there is a Self" to be false in some way? Do you mean by a certain definition of Self?

Similarly, I suspect that "I am God" and "I am not God" are false in some way.

This I can relate to more ~ we are both aspects of "God", being microcosms as Souls, and yet we are not "God" in full.

In that sense, it makes more sense to perhaps say that we, an incarnate aspect of Soul, are not the Soul itself, yet we are a microcosm of the Soul, within the Soul.

My guess is that Buddha had something like this in mind, because it is recorded that Buddhists and Jains would join Hindus in arguing against the ancient materialists who thought there was no Survival at all.

Quite possibly ~ if the Soul is but a microcosm of "God", then it is true. Buddha reportedly remained silent when asked about the nature of the Soul. After my own experiences... the Soul is indeed something that defies any and all descriptions from this down-here incarnate perspective, except to state that it is... vast and ineffable.

I've read the old Irish would say "A sadness has come upon me" rather than "I am sad" because the emotion was not by necessity a part of the Self. I think this detachment is, to some degree, part of Jeff Schwartz's method of dealing with OCD.

Detachment is useful ~ yet it comes with the risk of denying a recognition of the emotions within oneself, and so, one's emotional needs. We need a middle ground ~ that the mind is like a sky, and emotions are clouds that exist in that sky. The clouds are within our sky, but we are not the clouds, just the ground in which they arise from within, in response to something.

This seems to be thread the path between full identification of emotions/desires/cravings/etc with the Self and the idea that the Self is nothing but the "bundle" of different mental fragments.

One way of seeing this is that we don't have absolute control of the stream of feelings/thoughts/desires/etc in the way that the electrons that partly constitute a pen [have positions that are] only predictable stochastically. However just as we can move then pen and thus shift the indeterministic likelihood of where we expect the electron's positions to be at any given moment we can also shift our attention to alter the contents of the thought[ & feeling] stream.

Indeed ~ perhaps only the Self, Soul, has such capabilities, as it isn't fettered by the complexes as we incarnate beings are. We are fettered by our ego and Shadow ~ by the roles they play in helping us live this life in whatever way their form and function guides us to.

We've never had absolute free will ~ only limited free will determined by whether we can become conscious of our habits, patterns of behaviour, impulses and desires, and so make a full-fledged choice from there. Even if we have to choose based on not knowing everything happening in our mind. We can choose to reject the chocolate, or decide that maybe it's not bad to enjoy some every now and them. Thus we can choose to consciously accept the desire for something, or veto it.

Beyond that I am wary of looking at causation in the seeming "physical" world and implying it could work for mental causation. Feelings, thoughts, reasons...and so on don't have quantifiable force vectors or any other mathematically modeled equivalents from which a single outcome can be easily deduced. 

Mental causation seems to follow entirely its own mysterious rules ~ though perhaps influenced and guided by the nature of the ego and Shadow, human, in our case.

Even with "physical" causation it's important to note the circularity of abstracting "force" from measurements and then using the same abstraction to explain where the measurements came from.

Isn't that an attempt to figure out the physical causes of effects by measurement? Such as with gravity ~ we've never observed it directly, only the effects... but then, are we sure we know what the actual cause is, or are we blinded by appearances into not looking deeper?

Physics can be viewed in "Humean" terms, meaning there is no real causal "oomph" just patterns that we trust enough to exploit for our technology, medicine, etc. However it is more difficult to assume this could apply to mental causation, because this means the Pythagorean Theorem or Modus Ponens has no more truth value than lingual gibberish since logical arguments have to follow a proper semantic chain.

Though even the physics, there must be a real causal oomph behind the patterns ~ we just don't have the perspective to understand what is behind it all, the noumena behind the phenomena.

A Humean could try and argue that logic has no real truth value but is likely to use said logic rather than just mutter random sounds, essentially denying even their belief in what they claim.

All to say I would hesitate to think the non-physical is of the same nature as the "physical" which - at least in some sense - can be said follow "Natur[al] Laws" and is reducible into parts...though even those parts, as in particles, seem to arise from holistic fields?

I would hazard to say that the physical is perhaps more like the non-physical ~ the parts arise from within the whole. This physical subset of reality is a whole, within which patterns emerge because the habits are... "written" into the fabric of this reality, allowing those patterns to be as they are observed. Not rules or laws, so much as patterns and habits, per Sheldrake.

This seems true because of your experience with the physical universe. However, consciousness is not part of the physical universe, it is outside of space and time. The laws that govern it are not something we can assume by analogy to physical laws.

I don't think any of us are claiming that consciousness, mind, proper is part of the physical universe, yet it can be said that our particular manifestation, form, of consciousness, mind, is designed for the experience of physicality, through the shape of a physical form.

Experience is something within an experiencer's senses ~ there is no experience outside of an experiencer. Yet given the nature of mental causation, it perhaps seems that something can exist without being observed constantly. Structure and form can simply be, if stable enough, but they still require a creator.

What does it mean for "there is a Self" to be false in some way? Do you mean by a certain definition of Self?

The rest of your post I largely agree with, but for this I would say I don't even know if I can articulate what I mean.

When I read the writings of mystics, or certain sages & philosophers, I feel [there is truth in] some of what they say about how we need to make a distance between the Self and the "parts" we claim are included within it. I should be able to ask if my anger is justified, for example.

There also seems to be biology, culture, and personal conditioning that helps form our identity.

Is telepathy, or even empathy, possible if we are all completely distinct?

I also think there is *something* to the idea that we are all, in some way, One. 

OTOH I look at NDE life reviews and it makes me think there has to be a Self making choices otherwise life reviews would be pointless.

I also think there is a distinction between the observer and the mental "parts" that we can identify as partially constituting our Self, just as there is - IMO at least - a difference between thoughts/feelings and decisions.

Consider mathematical truths. For an instructor to help me improve my understanding of a math proof we both have to be focused on the same mental object, which implies some kind of Unity between us. OTOH, my experience of the math proof is part of my personal PoV.

To be fair none of what I am saying is a definitive argument, and even I am not sure if this is right. All I can say is that it  feels like it has some Truth to it....

[Laird]

What happens to your self when you are sleeping?

Let's first dispel the linguistic dichotomy you've employed to your advantage in that question: there is no distinction between me and "my" self; I am my self. To refer to "my self" is just another way of referring to "me".

That clarified, the answer to your question is:

For at least some of the time, I dream. Probably, for the rest (if any) of the time, I temporarily do not experience at all.

This is not the gotcha that you seem to think that it is.

I've also noticed that you confuse the self - that who experiences; the experient - with personality, which in turn you confuse with self-image. The self at core is simple and atomic, both prior to and independent of the complex identity (personality) that is layered on top of it, which in turn can differ from the story (aka our self-image) we tell ourselves about our personality.

You also confuse the self with free agency. While I think that there are cogent reasons to affirm both, it is logically possible to affirm the former while denying the latter. You seem to think, though, that denying the latter entails denying the former.

[Laird]

By the way, @Valmar, I recognise that in my previous post I took a similar authoritative tone to that which I've criticised you for using in the recent past. I just don't have any patience for this no-self B.S.

By the way, @Valmar, I recognise that in my previous post I took a similar authoritative tone to that which I've criticised you for using in the recent past. I just don't have any patience for this no-self B.S.

Same here. After all... if no-one's home, who is being fooled? If there is no self, then who is suffering? They're as bad as the Physicalist and Illusionist.

I've had some powerful spiritual experiences, and in retrospect I have not noticed a moment where I had no sense of self. Yes, maybe my perspective and sense of self were rather different at moments, but I was still fundamentally me at my core.

Even the mystic having a transcendent experience does not lose their sense of self ~ else who is there to remember and recall and bring back memories of the experience?

Either the preachy Buddhists have never had a mystical experience, or their experience has been interpreted through a no-self lens which highly distorts the experience.

To be fair none of what I am saying is a definitive argument, and even I am not sure if this is right. All I can say is that it  feels like it has some Truth to it....

The Ogre, the Onion and the Atman

Peter Sas

As the German Idealist Schelling (1775 - 1854) said, the unconditioned (“das Unbedingte”) cannot be a thing (“Ding”), because a thing is always conditioned (“be-dingt”). That is to say: a thing is always some-thing and thus determined, limited, finite, conditioned by its (causal or conceptual) relations to other things. Therefore, the source of my freedom – in being unconditioned – cannot be a thing: it must be no-thing, the indefinable void out of which all my free thoughts and actions emerge (and to which they return once they have run their course). But this unconditioned at the centre of my being, isn’t it the same as the unconditioned source of all that exists, of the entire universe?

After all, the unconditioned must be no-thing. But how can the nothing in me differ in any way from the nothing out of which the universe emerged? (And into which it will dissolve again once it has run its course.) Obviously, there cannot be multiple nothings, since they have no distinguishing characteristics – indeed, what is nothing has no characteristics at all! So, the nothing in me, the unconditioned source of my freedom, must be the same nothing that is the unconditioned source of reality-as-a-whole. I guess that’s what those ancient Indian philosophers meant when they said that “Atman is Brahman”, i.e. that the Self is the Ultimate Reality. This comes out beautifully in the famous dialogue between the sage Uddalaka and his son Svetaketu.

Having told his son to cut open one of the tiny seeds of the fruit of the banyan tree, Uddalaka asks: “What do you see there?” To which Svetaketu replies: “Nothing, sir.” Then Uddalaka says: “This finest essence here, son, that you can’t even see – look how on account of that finest essence this huge banyan tree stands here. Believe, my son: the finest essence here – that constitutes the Self of this whole world; that is the truth; that is the Self. And you are that, Svetaketu.” (Chandogya Upanishad 6.12)

The rest of your post I largely agree with, but for this I would say I don't even know if I can articulate what I mean.

When I read the writings of mystics, or certain sages & philosophers, I feel [there is truth in] some of what they say about how we need to make a distance between the Self and the "parts" we claim are included within it. I should be able to ask if my anger is justified, for example.

The confusion here I feel is that parts within the Self might be being confused with the Self being composed of parts, when the latter is not the reality experienced. Maybe it's the wording that reminds too much of Physicalism and Materialism... or maybe it's a consequence of them having such influence on modern philosophical views within science and academic philosophy.

Perhaps a better way is that the Self creates, manifests... forms, ideas, aspects, within itself composed of itself that are given a certain set of distinct qualities. These qualities perhaps must exist with that Self for them to be imbued with those forms more strongly, for them to have identity within the Self.

There also seems to be biology, culture, and personal conditioning that helps form our identity.

Is telepathy, or even empathy, possible if we are all completely distinct?

I also think there is *something* to the idea that we are all, in some way, One. 

I agree ~ but not in the sense that we return to Oneness as popular religion and spirituality might proclaim. We are "One" in the sense that we share a common nature as Souls, yet we are unique and distinct in identity in such a way that this can never be erased or destroyed ~ the core of what makes an individual Soul, well, an individual unique unto itself. This common nature is what makes telepathy possible, along with empathy. Perhaps empathy is a form of telepathy?

OTOH I look at NDE life reviews and it makes me think there has to be a Self making choices otherwise life reviews would be pointless.

That does seem to be the case ~ in a more nuanced sense, the Self seems to grant its incarnate aspect insight into the impacts of opportunities taken, yet unnoticed, and opportunities missed, alongside with a perspective of how we affected others and how others affected us.

I also think there is a distinction between the observer and the mental "parts" that we can identify as partially constituting our Self, just as there is - IMO at least - a difference between thoughts/feelings and decisions.

It's perhaps as much of a difference between the Soul as a whole, and the aspects within itself that it emphasizes. The microcosm of the incarnate human individual is perhaps simply just a certain manifestation of that, albeit in the form that the archetypal human ego shapes it to be. We have our unique thoughts and feelings as a reaction to stuff within experience, shaped by our ego, and then we have our decisions on how we choose to react to those thoughts and feelings, shaped again by the ego. Does that sound about right, or am I missing something?

Consider mathematical truths. For an instructor to help me improve my understanding of a math proof we both have to be focused on the same mental object, which implies some kind of Unity between us. OTOH, my experience of the math proof is part of my personal PoV.

Ah, but is the conceptualization of the mental object in your mind the same as the conceptualization of the mental object in their mind? It's more of a subjective understanding of the words and graphs and such that is being used to convey the mathematical proof. And who's to say that the person who wrote the words and graphs and such even communicated it correctly? Maybe the instructors knows what they mean, but can't communicate it correctly?

Of course, perhaps in the cases where we have a strong understanding with the instructor, maybe there is some unconscious telepathy and intuition going on...

To be fair none of what I am saying is a definitive argument, and even I am not sure if this is right. All I can say is that it  feels like it has some Truth to it....

Agreed ~ but the struggle and challenge is in articulating these Truths concisely and accurately... but if we don't have all the details and context, we're sort of left flailing around in the dark somewhat. I feel like we incarnate beings simply cannot comprehend the fuller picture of the Soul, because of how our ego-structures work, how they shape and form our perspectives and perceptions.

I had to be shown in metaphors the nature of the Soul, and even now, I feel like I know less than before. More questions than answers... even worse is the sometimes direct intuitions I receive I cannot even begin to describe using words, because it is so different to this human experience. And even the words I try and use would just be confusing, to myself and others, who might have a different internal dictionary to me, based on their own life experiences distinct from mine.

All to say that language almost limits more than it elucidates... :/