Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • +1 "this does not mean that the 'self' is imposed by us. And science has not proven that, nor can it ever do so theoretically;" From the position of the scientific realist, I don't think you'd find any dissent. But if it's a philosophical debate, and anti-realist would clearly embrace the self doesn't exist, no? After all, there is nothing physically tangible about the self at all, and psychologists struggle to come up with operational definitions to substantiate the notion of self and mind, no? Commented 22 hours ago
  • @JD Seems right to me, though tbh I'm not very up to date on my philosophy of science. Your answer seems the most correct to me. Commented 22 hours ago
  • Let me challenge you in accepting there are correct answers to philosophical answers, and perhaps only one's adequate for one's goals. I think every answer, even in its rejection, might lend some perspective to the question. I think you have captured the essence of the response the OP is seeking; hence my upvote! :D Commented 22 hours ago
  • @JD Thanks :) I upvoted yours as well. Commented 22 hours ago
  • What about the thinkers that he cited like Thomas Metzinger who cites a bunch of experiments? Or that there is no "seat" of the self in the brain? Or that body cells are frequently replaced? Or those that call it a model or simulation to track where we are in the world Commented 17 hours ago