Do you believe a 'you' exists?

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

Hey no problem on the tone whatsoever, it was only that the last post was going off topic and I was worried that it would lead the conversation astray.
You mentioned us inventing content, I disagree but Id be delighted to debate that in another thread, I like this forum so ill probably just hang around for general debate. I just dont want to go off topic here.

You also compared the mind to the belief of self, my mind exists, its a means of pattern recognition in the brain, I think the self is a belief.

You also believed that with my argument you could say that nothing exists, not even distance or time. I am not deep that, I believe everything exists, including thoughts, but where I differ is that I believe that the belief of the thought of self, one of the most powerful beliefs is untrue.
Kids believe in Santa but thats not that powerful a thought, it eventually becomes untrue.
When someone is hypnotised they temporarily believe something, but again its not that powerful and doesnt last long. The self is hammered into your brain your whole life so you need one giant wedge to get rid of it.
Most thoughts are based on real things, some arent, the concept of a you isnt. If we never spoke in the words I, you , myself, etc, and didnt hammer home the feeling of indivuality, I dont think that thought would ever have been as strong or engrained.




Now to address your last post...



I dont know what nirvana means, or the 'dread of existence', honestly.

Now you are very correct on something, we ARE talking about different things. Ive said it once or twice in this thread but I better say it again.
When I look in this mirror, there is acknowledgement that THIS body is the body that contains this brain that contains these thoughts, these thoughts are seperate from someone elses thoughts. THAT I believe is the mirror test, so yes there is some sort of acknowledgement deep down that I am separate. Just like a baby or an elephant or dolphin.

This body has EVERY reason to fear death, this life wants to survive. A fly or an Ant or even bacteria want to survive. There is no 'me' that 'owns' this want to survive, its just this life wanting to survive.
When Im hungry, there is no extra entity that owns this hunger, its just this body wanting to eat cause its hungry.
When I move my legs there is no me owning the want to move the legs, its the brain signalling the leg movement.

I agree that it would actually require a psychological break or mental illness to actually get to a point where I cant even acknowledge my own existence and thoughts as being different to something else, but thats not what Im talking. So I am aware I exist, but that is just awareness that this body exists, if you want to call that self awareness fine, but its not the self im talking about, there is no I or self needed to own this awareness.
Its just awareness.

You believe there is a 'you' that owns and controls everything your body does, as if its an extra entity or controller. That 'you' is a belief , or illusion, its not actually real, you know its not because you cant find it, you cant find a thought either, its just a thought, but the big difference is a regular thought is founded on real things.
You could go very deep and say maybe none of this is real, but im not going down that road here, thats another debate.
So I imagine my car outside. That car exists but I didnt actually create a real car in my head, just the illusion of one.
The you is an illusion in the same way. Its a feeling of a controller inside you that makes all the decisions, its a belief, an untrue one, but still a belief.

There is no me typing these words, just the thought creating signals, to move my fingers, to type whatever words come to mind, no one is owning those thoughts, they are just thoughts.

Your description of the mind I think is a little simplistic - its a little harder to pin down than that. It is much more than pattern recognition in the brain. And, importantly, its unidentified - even at this point in our evolution, with our technology, we cannot define the mind empirically. We simply can't! We can only theorise. One of my favourite theories of the mind is Vygotsky's theory that the mind does not exist within us, but rather between us.


And the other point -that the 'I' or 'self' is not hammered into us as we grow up. I disagree, the word 'I' exists because it has to. Language provides us with an expression of what it means to be. When a child looks in the mirror, and for the first time realises that he/she exists separately, he/she does it on their own, not because they are prompted.

And if there is no 'you' typing these words, then presumably everything you have done, and will ever do is pre-determined?

If there is no you, then why are you constrained by your'self' from doing whatever you want? Why do you feel guilt, shame, self-loathing? Why would you sacrifice anything for anyone?

wylo

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Your description of the mind I think is a little simplistic - its a little harder to pin down than that. It is much more than pattern recognition in the brain. And, importantly, its unidentified - even at this point in our evolution, with our technology, we cannot define the mind empirically. We simply can't! We can only theorise.

Completely agree, Im only trying to say what we know so far about the mind, there is alot of stuff going on in there that we have yet to discover.
Its an interesting thing, it creates things that arent true. it can conjure up images of things that exist or dont exist.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

And the other point -that the 'I' or 'self' is not hammered into us as we grow up. I disagree, the word 'I' exists because it has to. Language provides us with an expression of what it means to be. When a child looks in the mirror, and for the first time realises that he/she exists separately, he/she does it on their own, not because they are prompted.

But thats the point I was trying to make in my last post, I still pass the mirror test, but there is a different self, the one we feed through language, thats the one I cant see any more.
Im not giving out about language, those words are necessary, im simply saying those words like I, you, etc have created a new belief, it was an accident or fault if you will. Im not sure at what age, I see my youngest nephew is still living in the moment, hes two years old, I see my 9 year old nephew completely believes in the self.

Please dont confuse this with a 6 month old looking in the mirror and recognising that that body is the body that contains those thoughts.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

And if there is no 'you' typing these words, then presumably everything you have done, and will ever do is pre-determined?

I dont think anything is pre determined, things just happen, simple as, nothing is correct or incorrect, it just happens. But we are smart enough that we can alter the way things happen, like humans getting rid of that sense of self/I/controller.
Why does it have to be pre determined, why does there need to be a controller? There is no controller, no you, just thoughts.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

If there is no you, then why are you constrained by your'self' from doing whatever you want? Why do you feel guilt, shame, self-loathing? Why would you sacrifice anything for anyone?

You hit the nail on the head, alot of emotions are just emotions that have been skewed and twisted and mis interpreted through the sense of self.
When you lose the self, emotions become very basic and more raw. Self loathing is just a lie, its completely attached to the "self".
BUT real emotions dont rely on a self, like fear, anger, happiness, sadness, and then there is probably more complex human emotions like guilt.
But here is a list of emotions that I believe are completely reliant on this illusion of 'you' to survive: pointless anxiety, awkwardness, fear over something not dangerous, self confidence, self esteem (good or bad), self loathing, I might even go as far as saying depression, but I dont know I dont think I was ever depressed, and Ive little understanding of whats happening in the brain. But I have read the likes of Eckhart Tolle was depressed until he realized the self was an illusion, feeling sorry for yourself, being embarrassed cause you're trying to protect your ego, anything that relates to that ego or self really.

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

Completely agree, Im only trying to say what we know so far about the mind, there is alot of stuff going on in there that we have yet to discover.
Its an interesting thing, it creates things that arent true. it can conjure up images of things that exist or dont exist.

But thats the point I was trying to make in my last post, I still pass the mirror test, but there is a different self, the one we feed through language, thats the one I cant see any more.
Im not giving out about language, those words are necessary, im simply saying those words like I, you, etc have created a new belief, it was an accident or fault if you will. Im not sure at what age, I see my youngest nephew is still living in the moment, hes two years old, I see my 9 year old nephew completely believes in the self.

Please dont confuse this with a 6 month old looking in the mirror and recognising that that body is the body that contains those thoughts.


I dont think anything is pre determined, things just happen, simple as, nothing is correct or incorrect, it just happens. But we are smart enough that we can alter the way things happen, like humans getting rid of that sense of self/I/controller.
Why does it have to be pre determined, why does there need to be a controller? There is no controller, no you, just thoughts.

You hit the nail on the head, alot of emotions are just emotions that have been skewed and twisted and mis interpreted through the sense of self.
When you lose the self, emotions become very basic and more raw. Self loathing is just a lie, its completely attached to the "self".
BUT real emotions dont rely on a self, like fear, anger, happiness, sadness, and then there is probably more complex human emotions like guilt.
But here is a list of emotions that I believe are completely reliant on this illusion of 'you' to survive: pointless anxiety, awkwardness, fear over something not dangerous, self confidence, self esteem (good or bad), self loathing, I might even go as far as saying depression, but I dont know I dont think I was ever depressed, and Ive little understanding of whats happening in the brain. But I have read the likes of Eckhart Tolle was depressed until he realized the self was an illusion, feeling sorry for yourself, being embarrassed cause you're trying to protect your ego, anything that relates to that ego or self really.

Anxiety is rarely pointless, it is simply our warning system; how sensitive that is is another point - people do get overly anxious, but to be without anxiety would leave us in a very precarious position.
Fear is subjective - as is danger - I fear heights and flying - some people say its irrational, I disagree. Simple as. Statistically its not dangerous, but I guess another way of saying it would be to say I'm afraid of crashing in a plane. That is 'not' irrational.
Protecting the ego is a very sensible thing to do. Eckhart Tolle is a proponent of mindfulness, which I believe to be a very useful skill, but his assertion that the self is an illusion is an empty, unprovable statement.

wylo

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Anxiety is rarely pointless, it is simply our warning system; how sensitive that is is another point - people do get overly anxious, but to be without anxiety would leave us in a very precarious position.
Fear is subjective - as is danger - I fear heights and flying - some people say its irrational, I disagree. Simple as. Statistically its not dangerous, but I guess another way of saying it would be to say I'm afraid of crashing in a plane. That is 'not' irrational.
Protecting the ego is a very sensible thing to do. Eckhart Tolle is a proponent of mindfulness, which I believe to be a very useful skill, but his assertion that the self is an illusion is an empty, unprovable statement.

Do you honestly think anxiety is rarely pointless? Im not talking about heights of flying here, im talking about mild stupid anxieties.

Lets take self loathing for instance. Just say you see this fantastic looking person who is really really friendly, basically , in a nutshell they are a normal standard person, yet they hate themselves, they get anxious over it, they loath themselves, they think they are ugly, they think everyone hates them. Now you know these people exist. I know I gave a VERY extreme description there but its easier to get my point across.
Do you think that feeling is real? As in do you think there is a logical reason that person feels like that? The only reason they do is because they and other people have fed this self a lifetime of BS.
The illusion of the self has destroyed their way of thinking to a point that its ruining their lives.
This is why people turn to affirmations and hypnosis to try and change this 'self' for the better.
If you saw that it didnt even exist you'd know that hypnosis serves little purpose. I can still be hypnotised but all im doing now is temporarily adding another belief into my brain, im not throwing it on top of the self.

Why is protecting the ego so sensible, why does the ego need to be protected? Whats so special about this lovely wonderinful illusion of ego that it must cared for and nurtured and taken care and crafted and improved. People are convinced that this is necessary for happiness and confidence. Im convinced that once you lose that ego, content is the default state of mind. There is nothing to nurture so you are at piece.

As for Tolle, he can never prove that the self is an illusion, maybe in 100s of years scientists will be able to point it out, but for now they cant, so all you can do is try see for yourself by looking at reality , and questioning if a 'you' owns any of your thoughts or actions, once you see it , you'll know it was never real.

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

Do you honestly think anxiety is rarely pointless? Im not talking about heights of flying here, im talking about mild stupid anxieties.

Lets take self loathing for instance. Just say you see this fantastic looking person who is really really friendly, basically , in a nutshell they are a normal standard person, yet they hate themselves, they get anxious over it, they loath themselves, they think they are ugly, they think everyone hates them. Now you know these people exist. I know I gave a VERY extreme description there but its easier to get my point across.
Do you think that feeling is real? As in do you think there is a logical reason that person feels like that? The only reason they do is because they and other people have fed this self a lifetime of BS.
The illusion of the self has destroyed their way of thinking to a point that its ruining their lives.
This is why people turn to affirmations and hypnosis to try and change this 'self' for the better.
If you saw that it didnt even exist you'd know that hypnosis serves little purpose. I can still be hypnotised but all im doing now is temporarily adding another belief into my brain, im not throwing it on top of the self.

Why is protecting the ego so sensible, why does the ego need to be protected? Whats so special about this lovely wonderinful illusion of ego that it must cared for and nurtured and taken care and crafted and improved. People are convinced that this is necessary for happiness and confidence. Im convinced that once you lose that ego, content is the default state of mind. There is nothing to nurture so you are at piece.

As for Tolle, he can never prove that the self is an illusion, maybe in 100s of years scientists will be able to point it out, but for now they cant, so all you can do is try see for yourself by looking at reality , and questioning if a 'you' owns any of your thoughts or actions, once you see it , you'll know it was never real.

Mild stupid anxieties are simply extensions of anxieties that protect the self from potentially harmful situations. Perhaps our anxieties are often inflated or exaggerated, but they are there for a reason. If someone gets anxious in a crowd, there will inevitably be a reason for this, whether that is a previous negative experience, or witnessing something. In any case, the anxiety is there to alert oneself of a possible danger.
People who hate themselves also do so for a reason. These reasons are often inaccurate, but blaming the self for this makes no sense.
They may have been bullied, they may think that the thoughts or impulses they have are inhuman, there could be any number of reasons, but the self is not one! The self holds negative and positive schemas. Conversely, someone who has a very positive view of themselves can be capable of great kindnesses, which influences altruistic behaviour.
I get very frustrated when you discuss happiness, and contentment as though they were tangible but the self is not. Its very selective reasoning that you engage in. This happiness you discuss, or this reality/truth you mention are constructs also.
To say the sentence 'content is a default state of mind', while stating that the self is an illusion sounds like you really haven't thought this through

wylo

I think the debate with you will have to respectfully to come to an end. We will not agree on it no matter what, If I say that pointless anxiety is caused by the illusion of self, you will simply say its not an illusion.

I have tried explaining that affirmations and even hypnosis is like a minimized version of instilling a belief into a brain,and that the self is like a massive lifetime one, buts that's obviously not good enough.

Ive explained that happiness , content, sadness are emotions that are experienced not just by humans but by dogs, cats, horses, anything, that we did not contsruct them ourselves , that they are simply states that a body experiences, but you still think I am being selective in my picking of whats real and whats not.

Ive outlined that I acknowledge that that self-awareness mirror test is accurate and that that is NOT the self I have removed. There is still knowing that this body is where these thoughts are.

I can never ever prove to you that the self is not real, I can never ever prove to you that Santa is not real. I can try my best in words, but I can only do so much,

It was not a case of me 'thinking this through', it was a realization, I'll try my best to present the logic of it in words, as Ive said , others are better, but theres only so much I can do.
No matter what argument I make you will always believe that this self, the one we created through words and expressions and how we treat each other, this ownership of thoughts, this controller , is real. There is no convincing you otherwise!!

Dont get me wrong, im not annoyed, its an interesting debate, but I simply cant say anymore to you than whats been outlined throughout all the posts.
I know its probably frustrating for you as well cause it seems like Im being selective about whats real or not, but Im not being selective, ive clearly outlined the difference a few times.

strobe

wylo wrote: »

Ive explained that happiness , content, sadness are emotions that are experienced not just by humans but by dogs, cats, horses, anything, that we did not contsruct them ourselves , that they are simply states that a body experiences, but you still think I am being selective in my picking of whats real and whats not.

So Wylo, you do not believe dogs, cats, horses, chimpanzees, artificially develop the self? Only humans? How do you square that with the fact you were trying to tie arachnophobia to 'the self' earlier?

wylo

I presume that animals dont ,but I could be wrong, maybe an exception could be made for pet dogs or chimpanzees I really dont know, its just a presumption , the reason I use them as comparisons is because I believe most people agree with my presumption.
Beliefs behave in funny ways.
To answer your question, I was attempting to illustrate that the belief that harmless spiders can kill you is 'incorrect', that sometimes the brain believes stuff that isnt necessarily true to reality. The person with the fear knows in theory that this is not right yet they still run out of the room at the sight of a spider.
I was attempting to compare the strength of that belief with the strength of the belief of self.

Anyway I thought you already agreed with the theory, you just dont see any benefit to seeing no self?:)
But whatever, Ill answer any questions I can, and thats only if I can.

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

I presume that animals dont ,but I could be wrong, maybe an exception could be made for pet dogs or chimpanzees I really dont know, its just a presumption , the reason I use them as comparisons is because I believe most people agree with my presumption.
Beliefs behave in funny ways.
To answer your question, I was attempting to illustrate that the belief that are harmless spider can kill you is 'incorrect', that sometimes the brain believes stuff that isnt necessarily true to reality. The person with the fear knows in theory that this is not right yet they still run out of the room at the sight of a spider.
I was attempting to comparing the strength of that belief with the strength of the belief of self.

Anyway I thought you already agreed with the theory, you just dont see any benefit to seeing no self?:)
But whatever, Ill answer any questions I can, and thats only if I can.

Historically it made a lot of sense to be afraid of spiders, snakes etc....
Its an evolutionary adaptive tool, another one of those short cuts that I mentioned. Its a very prevalent fear, across cultures. Its not an accident, nor is it irrational in the true sense of the word.

wylo

nitpicking tbh, even prior to this 'realization' I would have completely disagreed with this. The fear is inconsistent , its a belief, most people dont believe it though but some do.
I suppose the fear of balloons is some sort adaptive tool as well,and is not irrational in the true sense of the word?
Theres plenty more too.

wylo

wylo wrote: »

To answer your question, I was attempting to illustrate that the belief that harmless spiders can kill you is 'incorrect',

actually I hate the word incorrect, im wrong there, that would imply theres some sort of 'order', maybe Ill use the word 'inefficient'. Makes more sense.

Ms.Odgeynist

wylo wrote: »

nitpicking tbh, even prior to this 'realization' I would have completely disagreed with this. The fear is inconsistent , its a belief, most people dont believe it though but some do.
I suppose the fear of balloons is some sort adaptive tool as well,and is not irrational in the true sense of the word?
Theres plenty more too.

Nitpicking? And would it be nitpicking to point out that its very easy to prove that Santa does not exist, as you stated would be impossible earlier. Santa and the self - both improvable I believe you said.

I sense your own tone is changing.
This 'realisation' seems to be weighing heavy upon you.
Are you being drawn back into the world of the self and the ego, your frustration seems to suggest you are.

Perhaps it was a breakdown rather than a realisation you had?

wylo

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Nitpicking? And would it be nitpicking to point out that its very easy to prove that Santa does not exist, as you stated would be impossible earlier. Santa and the self - both improvable I believe you said.

I sense your own tone is changing.
This 'realisation' seems to be weighing heavy upon you.
Are you being drawn back into the world of the self and the ego, your frustration seems to suggest you are.

Perhaps it was a breakdown rather than a realisation you had?

theres no ego , that doesnt mean I dont get irritated and annoyed.
Heres you presuming again that it takes a self to live like a human.
If I get annoyed its not cause im trying to protect an ego or self, its cause im get annoyed, simples.
I know you'd love to see me attempting to post in a calm well mannered fashion in attempt to "pretend" Ive no ego, only to blow it all. But im sorry thats not gonna happen. If I get annoyed , its because of annoyance. its not because im feeling this personal burn or pain on a self or ego that I feel the need to protect at all costs.


You cant prove Santa doesnt exist. You could take me all around the world , go to every corner of every country and he would not be there, and all id need say is maybe he somewhere else when we were over there! Maybe hes moving around.

wylo

This is what I feared would happen when engaging with you last time, completely off topic tbh.

strobe

wylo wrote: »

I presume that animals dont ,but I could be wrong, maybe an exception could be made for pet dogs or chimpanzees I really dont know, its just a presumption , the reason I use them as comparisons is because I believe most people agree with my presumption.
Beliefs behave in funny ways.
To answer your question, I was attempting to illustrate that the belief that harmless spiders can kill you is 'incorrect', that sometimes the brain believes stuff that isnt necessarily true to reality. The person with the fear knows in theory that this is not right yet they still run out of the room at the sight of a spider.
I was attempting to compare the strength of that belief with the strength of the belief of self.

Anyway I thought you already agreed with the theory, you just dont see any benefit to seeing no self?:)
But whatever, Ill answer any questions I can, and thats only if I can.

That's fair enough in relation to the spiders though. I thought you were trying to make a different point than you were. That the self was the reason they continued to fear the spiders.

Boroimhe

wylo I don't mean to be derailing the thread or to be argumentative but I felt Ms.Odgeynist made a few very good points and was enjoying your discussions, to cut them off like that does show a lack of belief or conviction in your argument.

Please respond to them and allow a healthy debate to follow

wylo

Ok , but I outlined the reasons in my last post, I gave a big list of reasons, we were only going around in circles.
I hope it didnt come across as personal. It was just that the debate felt like it was going nowhere.
He/she wasnt answering my questions directly, once or twice he would just quote my whole post and then write another question.

He doesnt seem to be listening really either, I argued my point about why the belief of self is not the same as emotions/content. And that was his main argument, but he wasnt listening , just claiming that we invented content.

I argued that you could never prove Santa does not exist, just like I can never prove the self does not exist.

I completely disagreed with his claim that our fear of spiders is an adaptive tool. I doubt when we were cavemen we were running around in panic whenever we saw a harmless spider (unless someone had an irrational fear back then too of course, or unless the cavemen knew it was a dangerous spider)


BUT I will have another look at the last few posts and try my best to continue on the discussion so, cause maybe it was a bit arrogant of me, i was just getting tired at the time.


ps. sorry Ms.Odgeynist I dont know if your male/female:) , judging by Ms I presumed female

wylo

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Mild stupid anxieties are simply extensions of anxieties that protect the self from potentially harmful situations.

Please explain this 'extension' exactly so I can argue this point properly.
IMO mild stupid anxieties are incorrect beliefs where we believe something bad will happen when in truth nothing bad will happen, but PLEASE explain the extension you talk

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

Perhaps our anxieties are often inflated or exaggerated, but they are there for a reason. If someone gets anxious in a crowd, there will inevitably be a reason for this, whether that is a previous negative experience, or witnessing something. In any case, the anxiety is there to alert oneself of a possible danger.
People who hate themselves also do so for a reason. These reasons are often inaccurate,

Ah so you do agree with me thats a just a belief based on past experience, well we finally agree on something , the difference is you think this is ok, we should be going along with this. Whereas I think irrational pointless beliefs should be addressed.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

but blaming the self for this makes no sense.

The self is a belief that the mind works off, again, lets talk about self hatred, the self is a thought that you believe to be true, if your relationship with this self is negative because you have been told horrible things about yourself your whole life, then the belief is negative.
That is why the likes of Eckhart Tolle (power of now) lost all his anxieties and depression when he realised that the self is only something the mind has created.

"I" am ugly, "I" hate my "self", "I" am fantastic, "I" am really great looking, "I" believe in my "self".

To me thats all nonsense now, its just beliefs. now some of them are well founded, like if someone is actually ugly, in a way its a correct belief, HOWEVER, its how it manifests itself is that is detrimental, as this self holds onto and repeats this thought.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

They may have been bullied, they may think that the thoughts or impulses they have are inhuman, there could be any number of reasons, but the self is not one! The self holds negative and positive schemas. Conversely, someone who has a very positive view of themselves can be capable of great kindnesses, which influences altruistic behaviour.

Exactly , do you think these beliefs are actually based on real things. Do you think someone who has a negative view of themselves is actually correct in their belief? Be honest, I know you dont. I think this belief is based on words that this person has heard their whole life, their negative belief of the their self.
When they realise the self is only a belief, then they realise all that negative stuff was bollox. It was just an illusion. When you truly experience a realization that the self doesnt exist, you know longer believe stuff like that, because you realise you are just a human that is part of existence.

Ms.Odgeynist wrote: »

I get very frustrated when you discuss happiness, and contentment as though they were tangible but the self is not. Its very selective reasoning that you engage in. This happiness you discuss, or this reality/truth you mention are constructs also.
To say the sentence 'content is a default state of mind', while stating that the self is an illusion sounds like you really haven't thought this through

As ive explained before, content is a state of mind, its not a belief. Santa is a belief, we did not invent content, if an animal is hungry he is not content, when he gets food he is content. Content is simply not being unhappy.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/content
–adjective 1. satisfied with what one is or has; not wanting more or anything else.


Now , whats the difference ? Well the sense of self is neither an emotion or a state of mind in itself, its a belief. You believe there is a controller, almost an extra entity, a soul, whatever, that has control over every word you say, every action you make. You believe that there is an ownership of your body. There is no ownership, the body simply exists. You believe that when you walk, talk and are eating at the same time that "you" are controlling all of this.
Heres a decent blog that was written today on how we cant even control our thoughts never mind anything else
http://ghostvirus2011.blogspot.com/2011/05/things-you-can-not-do-no1-stop-and.html

You cannot take a thought out of your mind, there is no controller that can say "right I dont like this thought, I am not going to think of it anymore". If its a serious thought, like someone has died recently, or you got a new job you cant forcibly remove that thought from your mind.
There is no controller, no you, just body, brain, thoughts.

Now id really appreciate it if you replied to each argument by quoting, because it often feels your not reading my posts, just skimming through and quoting the whole thing and giving your opinion.

I think Eckhar tolle but it the best when he had his realization, he asked himself "How can I live with myself", then he realized "What does that even mean? Is there two me's?, How can I live with myself". He realized he didnt have to live with his self. Because the self was just a belief.

I wont lie, its difficult enough to describe in words. All I can say is when you actually cant even imagine a 'me' anymore as oppose to trying to ignore it, thats when you attain a 'realization'.

wylo

Ok i wont be bumping this thread for the sake , cause thats just annoying, this will be the only time I do,cause I really have to get people to look at this video.
He puts what Im trying to say into much better words than I seem to be able to do.
Ive no interest in spirituality, buddhism or any of that stuff, i dont even know who this guy is, but this video is worth a watch , he explains what Ive been trying to say, we try and "fix" or improve beliefs instead of realizing they are simply not true!
The belief of self being one of the most prominent ones.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OgeC-Q7HB8

strobe

Seriously Wylo? Fukking hell man.

The leader is strong, the leader is great, we surrender our will, as of this date.

Da na na na na na na na Batman!

wylo

I dunno is that in reference to Ruthless Truth or that post above, if its about the post above, well, you know Ive already stated a few times taht I cant stand spirituality or buddhism or any of that crap. I really dont like it. Up to 2 months Id never shown any interest in that crap in my whole life, and I still continue not to, the only difference is that that guy above is talking about shedding beliefs, thats why I posted it.

If you think that what humans believe is all 100% true now, then your living in a dream world man.
Do you think that all those 1000s of years humans didnt know stuff and believed weird sh1t, and now WE are somehow privileged and know everything, bollox, thats all I can say to that
There'll be people in 1000s of years laughing at the sh1t we thought we knew, just like we laugh at people believing in witches and all this other nonsense.
You need to always push your beliefs, even your signature says so,otherwise there'd be no such thing as an atheist. The problem arises when people think they've pushed them enough and now they're almost arrogantly like "No, what we have now is grand, this is it now, nothing else, we know everything now thats fine as it is".

Now if its in reference to Ruthless Truth , well below is a good post on that whole cult thing that people seem to bring up, it genuinely makes me laugh, you'd swear I have somehow committed to some bullsh1t, complete opposite , I log in to boards.ie more than I do Ruthless Truth, is this place a cult as well? FFS man, seriously, you can do better than that, at least before you were trying to pick holes in my statements, thats grand , thats what debating is.

The last line of this post really struck a chord with me, thats why Im letting people in real life approach me instead of me mentioning it to anyone, cause they're starting to notice I seem to have a far more relaxed attitude to life, inner peace is what its called, when only important things matter.
Its also why Im going to start taking a bit more a back seat approach, rather than head on promotion of this stuff online, people simply just dont care , they are content with not knowing. This forum is grand cause its philosophy, people ask questions, people want to know stuff, but tbh I kinda regret starting the other thread. People are simply WAY too stuck in their own beliefs over there to even give the concept a tiny chance. Its just not worth the effort. They can have their gurus, hell , they might even get a spot on Loius Theroux or something if they're lucky.

You are clearly opposed, Im not sure why, ill obviously keep debating but im done thinking you will actually have a look for yourself(im not talking about the site there, im talking about questioning your own self)
So its just gonna be for the benefit of others that might be a bit curious.

Well, I guess people can skew anything they want anyway they want. Especially when they don't understand something or are scared or have the status quo threatened.

RT fulfills very few of those checkpoints for a cult, and it's not a religion. It's a forum.

Nobody is forced to read the forum or the posts or blogs. Nobody is required to pay anything in any way. Everything is given freely. No-one is required to stay once, and if, they are liberated. More people walk away than stay. Anyone who does post here does so entirely at their own convenience and within the constraints of their daily life and doings. No-one has to give up anything, believe anything, do anything, not do anything, exalt anyone, cut anyone out of their lives (unless they want to), think, act or feel a certain way. There is no creed, no rules, no ideology, no practices and no rules; except the instruction LOOK, there is no you, is that true? Questioning, doubt and dissent are not discouraged, in fact quite the opposite - they are encouraged.

The one about "the leader is considered the Messiah" is true, and it needs a lot of brain-washing and whipping to get people on board with that one.. but small price to pay, eh? ;-)

The truth is not a comfortable thing for a lot of people because they think it is going to undermine their experience of and circumstances of life. When, in fact, nothing changes materially. Life goes on. As it always did. Nothing is different, other than seeing something that turns out to be very obvious. And which also turns out to be the most unthreatening thing ever. Ironic really.

I would counsel against trying to get someone to see this if they are opposed. It's something you've got to want. Maybe if your partner sees that you are still essentially the same person, she may wonder of her accord?

wylo

strobe wrote: »

Seriously Wylo? Fukking hell man.

The leader is strong, the leader is great, we surrender our will, as of this date.

Da na na na na na na na Batman!

Its ironic, your the one who believes something that you know is untrue (you've admitted this), yet your the one making simpsons references to ME?
It should be the other way around, im the one with the balls to tackle it, not you. So on that note

The leader is strong, the leader is great, we surrender our will, as of this date.

Da na na na na na na na Batman!

philologos

Treating this on a philosophical level only simply put yes, I do believe that an I exists. Each individual is consistent in that there is a set of experiences that are instinctively theirs and that instinctively changed their lives and their thinking. I am not the same person as the person I was when I was 12 although there has been considerable development I still am the same I even if the collection of experiences I had then were lesser. Put it this way, the experiences I had up until I was 12 are a subset of the experiences that I have had up until now. The only difference is that I have had many more since. So in a sense I'm an empiricist in respect to identity. In addition to the I that I think that we have through experience, I think much of our I is derived from our origins from what we believe about how we got here, to our families, culture and general surroundings. All have a profound impact on us.

Perhaps a modified version of John Locke's thinking on the tabular rasa and our lives constantly being added to. If you look at it in a sculpture type way the tabular rasa could be the block and the experiences are the chippings made by the scalpel into the block. Each chipping shapes us a little bit more until the sculpture is completely different from the original block.

strobe

wylo wrote: »

I dunno is that in reference to Ruthless Truth or that post above, if its about the post above, well, you know Ive already stated a few times taht I cant stand spirituality or buddhism or any of that crap. I really dont like it. Up to 2 months Id never shown any interest in that crap in my whole life, and I still continue not to, the only difference is that that guy above is talking about shedding beliefs, thats why I posted it.

If you think that what humans believe is all 100% true now, then your living in a dream world man.
Do you think that all those 1000s of years humans didnt know stuff and believed weird sh1t, and now WE are somehow privileged and know everything, bollox, thats all I can say to that
There'll be people in 1000s of years laughing at the sh1t we thought we knew, just like we laugh at people believing in witches and all this other nonsense.
You need to always push your beliefs, even your signature says so,otherwise there'd be no such thing as an atheist. The problem arises when people think they've pushed them enough and now they're almost arrogantly like "No, what we have now is grand, this is it now, nothing else, we know everything now thats fine as it is".

Now if its in reference to Ruthless Truth , well below is a good post on that whole cult thing that people seem to bring up, it genuinely makes me laugh, you'd swear I have somehow committed to some bullsh1t, complete opposite , I log in to boards.ie more than I do Ruthless Truth, is this place a cult as well? FFS man, seriously, you can do better than that, at least before you were trying to pick holes in my statements, thats grand , thats what debating is.

The last line of this post really struck a chord with me, thats why Im letting people in real life approach me instead of me mentioning it to anyone, cause they're starting to notice I seem to have a far more relaxed attitude to life, inner peace is what its called, when only important things matter.
Its also why Im going to start taking a bit more a back seat approach, rather than head on promotion of this stuff online, people simply just dont care , they are content with not knowing. This forum is grand cause its philosophy, people ask questions, people want to know stuff, but tbh I kinda regret starting the other thread. People are simply WAY too stuck in their own beliefs over there to even give the concept a tiny chance. Its just not worth the effort. They can have their gurus, hell , they might even get a spot on Loius Theroux or something if they're lucky.

You are clearly opposed, Im not sure why, ill obviously keep debating but im done thinking you will actually have a look for yourself(im not talking about the site there, im talking about questioning your own self)
So its just gonna be for the benefit of others that might be a bit curious.

Jesus tap dancing Christ... Are you really that easily led?... Is the above a response to my Simpsons reference? That isn't an overly defensive response in the slightest. Not at all.

Are you really done thinking I will actually have a look for myself? Really? Done?

That melodramatic from a silly reference to a cartoon? But you are free of the Ego, right?

Here Wylo listen, I don't want to piss on your parade. If you are happy I am happy, really. But the whole "If you are going to insist on disagreeing with me you can fukk right off' thing is hardly beneficial or productive now is it?

Anyway, your obsessive hoarding of offense and overreaction to throwaway comments in defense of your dogma is kind of off topic, so lets leave it there huh?

I'm kind of interested in the conversation that is set to develop between you and Phil. So, I'll watch that with interest.

Peace.

=========================================

Seeing as I am on a two for two score ratio, Wylo here is another quote (and former signature of mine "that says so") from my favourite philosopher;

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

wylo

strobe wrote: »

Jesus tap dancing Christ... Are you really that easily led?... Is the above a response to my Simpsons reference? That isn't an overly defensive response in the slightest. Not at all.

overly defensive ? not at all.
Rant? maybe yes, so apologies for that I did write alot, it was more just directed at the whole cult thing in general.
I just typed and typed there, I love talking about it, I love defending it, only cause I would love to see someone crack it , thats all. That is honestly the truth, I write that sh1t so someone else sees and says 'hmmm fair enough', but yea im obviously doing a sh1t job (im not being sarcastic there, im not too good at this at all).
It would be a great feeling to know that this thread wasnt a complete waste of time, I wouldnt care about them coming back on here saying 'hes right' or ANY of that crap, it would just be great to know that the time spent contributed to something.
That said, it already did, because my clarity and peace has deepened alot through writing here!!

I know it looks like an ego thing, thats honestly cause I couldnt give a **** how my posts come across. Its me talking and ranting and talking and ranting.
But sorry I write alot , i like writing, Im not into one liners, like I know you were only taking the piss, but I saw it and 'right this is him making the expected cult reference, lets make an argument to that'. I laughed but I still wanted to say my point!
Now can you understand my posts are long and 'ranty'?

strobe wrote: »

Are you really done thinking I will actually have a look for myself? Really? Done?

Not sure what you mean by that phrasing, but yes is the answer to that question.

strobe wrote: »

That melodramatic from a silly reference to a cartoon? But you are free of the Ego, right?

Again, always back to presuming its the ego, it always has to be the ego? No it doesnt, a passive aggressive joke referencing simpsons sparked a want to address the whole cult thing, that was what my response was about. Simple as that.
Again, as I said Im not going pretend to write "calmly" and perfectly all the time. Im just gonna blast out whats on my mind. If I look like im angry on it, I honestly dont care. Its a liberating feeling going off on a rant and then not even thinking to yourself after "did I go overboard?" Its actually nice, as a matter of fact the reason I edited so much was cause id more ranting to add to it.:D

strobe wrote: »

Here Wylo listen, I don't want to piss on your parade. If you are happy I am happy, really.

Thank you, I think you mean it so I honestly appreciate it.

strobe wrote: »

But the whole "If you are going to insist on disagreeing with me you can fukk right off' thing is hardly beneficial or productive now is it?

Tbf thats not what im doing at all, every single debate, ive debated back, yes once I got tired and stopped replying to another poster but Boroimhe put me straight so I did dive back in. I you made a funny joke and I wrote a big massive post pretty much responding to it. Thats anything but 'you can fukk right off'.

strobe wrote: »

Anyway, your obsessive hoarding of offense and overreaction to throwaway comments in defense of your dogma is kind of off topic, so lets leave it there huh?

yes, lets

strobe wrote: »

I'm kind of interested in the conversation that is set to develop between you and Phil. So, I'll watch that with interest.

Peace.

im interested too, but whos phil?

strobe wrote: »

Seeing as I am on a two for two score ratio, Wylo here is another quote (and former signature of mine "that says so") from my favourite philosopher;

"It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No-one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things."

Na man, when I realised you werent even listening or following the quotes yourself, it kind of took the excitement out of them.

But anyway I shall continue the debate if you want, but just because im arguing your point doesnt mean im telling you to fukk right off. Honestly! I just love debating it tbh.

wylo

I think its worth pointing out to any people just having a read through that start doubting as soon as you see a bit of annoyance or frustration from me.

An enlightened person is a human that experiences all emotions, including getting annoyed. You do not suddenly become this really passive pleasant blissful person always in 'high' mode. Now some of posts are just rants, i just like writing alot, and some of them possibly have a tang of anger to them. Now I dont mean anger in a rage sense, just more a slight pissed offness.

My point is , I am still a person like anyone else. There is no difference, I just see no self now. That is the realization. I can steal my pens off my work colleague all day and he'll get angry, but its not a dent to his ego, its just him angry cause im stealing his pens.
And it would be the EXACT same if he was doing the same to me, Id get angry too.
I just thought it was something to point out that may be of interest.
So if you see posts like that, dont just say "ahhhh theres the ego"!!!

philologos

wylo: can you tell me what is mistaken about my empiricist style take to the question a few posts ago?

Axle_of_Elvis

philologos wrote: »

Treating this on a philosophical level only simply put yes, I do believe that an I exists. Each individual is consistent in that there is a set of experiences that are instinctively theirs and that instinctively changed their lives and their thinking. I am not the same person as the person I was when I was 12 although there has been considerable development I still am the same I even if the collection of experiences I had then were lesser. ... If you look at it in a sculpture type way the tabular rasa could be the block and the experiences are the chippings made by the scalpel into the block. ...

Instead of a sculpture, why not use the analogy of a car. Suppose I have a car: one of the wheels breaks and I replace it with a different wheel. Over time other parts break and are replaced, one by one until every single component of the original car has been replaced by new components. Is it still the same car? In one sense, no: none of the original car remains. But, I still refer to it and think of it as "my car" and I don't think of myself as having disposed of one car before acquiring a new car. So in another sense, I do think of it as the same car. But this is just a conceptual fiction (albeit a functional and practical fiction).

The same is true of people, at least physically. Physically, you have nothing in common with your 12-year-old self because, by the age of 18, every single physical cell in that 12-year-old body has died and been replaced.

The same is true of the mind, although a little harder to demonstrate. You mention the continuity of experiences, by which I take you to imply that continuity of memory is the evidence of a self which persists through time. Fair enough. Leaving aside the many vagaries and inaccuracies of memory (how do you preserve identity in the case of an amnesiac?), what if memory exists not as a thing but as a causally related chain of events. I'm thinking of the way motion is transferred from one snooker ball to another ball when they strike: here we have a causal chain where one thing has an effect on the next, but there isn't a single "thing" called "the movement", except as a manner of speaking (i.e., a conceptual fiction). The supposed persistence of experience and memory is really just a chain of separate mental events, each one discreet but influenced by the event which preceded it.

The notion of self is, by this reading, a conceptual fiction. A useful one, but not grounded in reality.

philologos

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

Instead of a sculpture, why not use the analogy of a car. Suppose I have a car: one of the wheels breaks and I replace it with a different wheel. Over time other parts break and are replaced, one by one until every single component of the original car has been replaced by new components. Is it still the same car? In one sense, no: none of the original car remains. But, I still refer to it and think of it as "my car" and I don't think of myself as having disposed of one car before acquiring a new car. So in another sense, I do think of it as the same car. But this is just a conceptual fiction (albeit a functional and practical fiction).

Good example to start off with. However, I don't think I can genuinely replace experience. If I have experienced something as a 12 year old, I cannot suddenly replace that with something I have experienced when I am 22 unless I am heavily deluded. I cannot really erase it either unless I fall into a horrific state of amnesia. We can't chuck out parts from our experience or replace them with a revisionist account of what happened at least not without considerable difficulty.

I think you'll agree in that much? I don't think the analogy ends up fitting all to well.

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

The same is true of people, at least physically. Physically, you have nothing in common with your 12-year-old self because, by the age of 18, every single physical cell in that 12-year-old body has died and been replaced.

If we are speaking biologically yes. In terms of experience that is retained, there is much of my 12 year old me in 2001 that has influenced my development as a 22 year old me in 2011.

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

The same is true of the mind, although a little harder to demonstrate. You mention the continuity of experiences, by which I take you to imply that continuity of memory is the evidence of a self which persists through time. Fair enough. Leaving aside the many vagaries and inaccuracies of memory (how do you preserve identity in the case of an amnesiac?), what if memory exists not as a thing but as a causally related chain of events. I'm thinking of the way motion is transferred from one snooker ball to another ball when they strike: here we have a causal chain where one thing has an effect on the next, but there isn't a single "thing" called "the movement", except as a manner of speaking (i.e., a conceptual fiction). The supposed persistence of experience and memory is really just a chain of separate mental events, each one discreet but influenced by the event which preceded it.

Careful. Mind != experience. Experience is something kept in memory, but it is not absolute equivalent of mind. Experience is a subset of the mind. Actually memory is a subset of the mind.

You don't preserve identity in the amnesiac. In many ways that person's identity may be changed forever. The only thing that unifies the former I and the new I as a result of the amnesia is the physical body which it has possessed continually since conception.

Axle_of_Elvis wrote: »

The notion of self is, by this reading, a conceptual fiction. A useful one, but not grounded in reality.

Not quite. You still have a long way to go to absolutely refute the empirical version of the I. Albeit I've now added a physical layer to it in addressing the problem of amnesia but we will need to substantiate the idea that one can replace, or erase experiences with relative ease. Something which I don't really believe is possible. The 12 year old philologos still has very real impact on the 22 year old philologos even if the 12 year old philologos is merely an experience subset of the 22 year old philologos and that the 12 year old philologos no longer exists as the 12 year old philologos did in 2001.

Axle_of_Elvis

philologos wrote: »

If I have experienced something as a 12 year old, I cannot suddenly replace that with something I have experienced when I am 22 unless I am heavily deluded.

The causal chain model is still good here. Earlier events in the chain have an influence on later events; the later events cannot change the earlier events. You can call this phenomenon "experience" but there is no need to postulate a persisting object like "identity" or "self": a chain of causally connected events is all that's required.

Now, when I turn my attention to my own mind, all I perceive is a flow of thoughts, one after another. Some thoughts are memories, others are reflections on current experience, others are considerations about the future. But only one thought exists at a time; and each thought, existing for a while, then ends (although it has a conditioning influence on the thoughts which follow). I call this stream of thoughts "my mind", but actually there is no persisting thing which I can empirically observe: just a stream of individual thoughts, and occasionally the thought "this is my mind".

Admittedly, I can have an experience. And, after an interval of time (and a stream of unrelated thoughts), I can have a memory of that experience. Without some kind of persisting mental "container" in which the memory is "stored" (i.e., a "self") until it is recalled to mind, how do we connect the experienced event with the later memory of the event?

One way is to suggest that the experience sets in motion a chain of thoughts about the event, most of which are "latent", that is to say, do not appear in the stream of thoughts of which I am conscious. But every once in a while one of these thoughts about the event does emerge in the stream of thoughts of which I am conscious, and we call this "remembering".

It might seem a bit laborious to have to postulate an unconscious chain of causally-related "latent" thoughts, but consider digestion: it's a process, not a thing, and most of the time you're completely unconscious of it, although it certainly has an effect on the rest of the bundle of causally-related elements which we call "the person". So memory is a process of events, a causal chain, most of whose elements occur outside the realm of awareness. It does not have to be a concrete thing which persists through time.