Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[AmericanKestrel]

The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.

If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same. Where is the self?
Define self.
Advaita defines self (Atma) as the the reflection of the one single universal existence known as Brhman (Bigness) . It is the body that experiences the world created by the mind. The Atma remains as a seer and is not affected by the experience in any way.

AmericanKestrel,
"The Atman remains as seer and is not affected by the experience in any way." quote You must admit that this is a mystical statement and really just a statement of the existence of a god, where else might one find a bases for such a statement. Personally I am more comfortable with Spinoza's god, being the totality.

Define god. If you mean by that a creator god, no, there is no creation outside of what your own mind creates and projects. The universe is within you.

[AmericanKestrel]

The self is both subject and object and the object includes the cosmos.

The self can only be the subject, always the subject. Once there is an object it is dualism. The self is one, non-dual existence.
If the subject equals object it is an illusion.

[popeye1945]

The self is both subject and object and the object includes the cosmos.

The self can only be the subject, always the subject. Once there is an object it is dualism. The self is one, non-dual existence.
If the subject equals object it is an illusion.

AmericanKestrel,
That is what I have been trying to get acrosss the union of subject and object is not a duality, one just needs to know it for what it is. Schopenhauer was right subject and object stand or fall together, no duality. Without both as a unity, there is nothing. You are the world the eyes the consciousness of the world. "If the subject equals object it is illusion." Well, apparent reality is an illusion it is the biological readout of the subject, and not being able to sense all stimulus it fails to see ultimate reality. Subject and object one.

[popeye1945]

Define god. If you mean by that a creator god, no, there is no creation outside of what your own mind creates and projects. The universe is within you.
[/quote]

AmericanKestrel,
We are pretty much saying the same thing here, subject and object are a mutual creation, again apparent reality is a biological readout by the subject and subject arose from ultimate reality, but the subject only perceives through sensing/reaction part of the spectrum of ultimate reality, thus it is called apparent reality. Ultimate reality is not accessible to the conscious subject.

[RJG]

The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.

If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same.

Not so. The physical body* is the experiencer. Bodily reactions are the experiences.

Consciousness itself is an experience (a bodily reaction called "recognition") made possible by memory. Those bodies that possess memory have the capability to experience consciousness, as do those bodies that possess eyeballs have the capability to experience sight/vision.

Note* -- To be more specific, the "self" ("I"; consciousness; experiencer) is the memory portion of the physical body. Take away someone's memory and you take away their consciousness. (...take away their eyeballs and you take away their sight.).

[Terrapin Station]

Feel free to direct me to another discussion but I couldn't find one addressing my particular view. There's something that is constantly on that lies deeper than thought and sensation. Thoughts and senses are how I interact with the world, but they are not me. They are the vessel by which I exist in the universe. They are the coat I put on to go out in the universe night.

Although my body is composed entirely of the universe, it's not certain nor even apparent that the spirit inside is. You could say it's a cloud of electricity inside the brain, but this doesn't fully explain the "I"ness or how and why my consciousness evolved to exist. If any one of my father's sperm had beat the one that made it to my mother's egg, they'd have conceived a body very similar but the I that is me would never have existed (or would it?), and from my point of view the universe would never have existed.

The I is something that voluntarily interacts in the world but whose existence is involuntary (except to end it by suicide. The constant hum began and continues involuntarily).

There is a fundamental difference between myself and all other beings, just as there is between yourself and all other beings- a fundamental uniqueness that indicates something other-worldly even from an atheist perspective. Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

You can explain its biological origins and how it interacts with the world, but its essential origin is not of the scientific or corporeal realm..

I couldn't more strongly disagree with this, plus (a) there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that it's right, and (b) it doesn't even make any philosophical sense.

You're simply your body, and insofar as any mental phenomena go, you're simply what your particular brain does.

[Steve3007]

Although multiples souls exist, each one isn't just unique but uniquely unique.

Just a quick confirmation of intended meaning: What's the difference between being unique and being uniquely unique? Is it possible to be non-uniquely unique?

[popeye1945]

The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.

If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same.

AmericanKestrel.
Yes I would say that the experiencer and that which is experienced/object are one.

[AmericanKestrel]

The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.

If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same.

AmericanKestrel.
Yes I would say that the experiencer and that which is experienced/object are one.

In that case it is an illusion of the mind, not of the self which is self-illumined and is always the subject.

[popeye1945]

The "self" ("I"; consciousness) is just the "experiencer" (physical recognition) of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations reactively created by the physical body. There is no "self" beyond these experiences.

If the Self is the experiencer of the experience, and there is no self beyond these experiences, then the experience and the experiencer are the same.

AmericanKestrel.
Yes I would say that the experiencer and that which is experienced/object are one.

In that case it is an illusion of the mind, not of the self which is self-illumined and is always the subject.

AmericanKestrel.
Yes, I think what you have is a mystical interpretation. If you agree with Schopenhauer that subject and object stand or fall together then you must understand without that unity as one there is nothing, a non-mystical view.

[AmericanKestrel]

AmericanKestrel.
Yes I would say that the experiencer and that which is experienced/object are one.

In that case it is an illusion of the mind, not of the self which is self-illumined and is always the subject.

AmericanKestrel.
Yes, I think what you have is a mystical interpretation. If you agree with Schopenhauer that subject and object stand or fall together then you must understand without that unity as one there is nothing, a non-mystical view.

It could be mystical and esoterical, but it is a correct observation. If you see a dog and think you are a dog, what do you call that?

[popeye1945]

AmericanKestrel,
LOL!!! That's funny but if you understand that the physical world as object is half of your cognitive function. It is the fuel the brain runs upon in order to produce the mind. That is why Schopenhauer says subject and object stand or fall together. Whatever is outside you is the physical world including your own body. The mind's first object is the body and it is only through the body that the mind knows a physical world. PS; you still see a dog or a tree or a waterfall.

[popeye1945]

AmericanKestrel,
AJG and I seem to be differing somewhat here, if you say that subject and object are one you've got it. One cannot exist without the other. Remember the physical world you know is not independent of you its reality is cognitive and a biological readout. The individual is both subject and object.

[AmericanKestrel]

AmericanKestrel,
LOL!!! That's funny but if you understand that the physical world as object is half of your cognitive function. It is the fuel the brain runs upon in order to produce the mind. That is why Schopenhauer says subject and object stand or fall together. Whatever is outside you is the physical world including your own body. The mind's first object is the body and it is only through the body that the mind knows a physical world. PS; you still see a dog or a tree or a waterfall.

The body-mind complex and the world is not your true self. You have to look within, not outwards, to find your Self.

[AmericanKestrel]

AmericanKestrel,
AJG and I seem to be differing somewhat here, if you say that subject and object are one you've got it. One cannot exist without the other. Remember the physical world you know is not independent of you its reality is cognitive and a biological readout. The individual is both subject and object.

Your view is incomplete, that is why it does not make sense. There is only one subject, everything else is objects. Objects, the world, are projections of the mind, they have only a relative xistence. The Self, the seer, is eternal, the only reality. It alone remains after the body, and the mind along with it, dies. This is the only thing that exists in all names and forms.