Timeline for answer to Does science prove that the self does not exist, and if so what would that mean for human society? by Dark Malthorp
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | OK, so again the notion that it's emergent would imply that looking at individual cells you won't see it. | |
| 4 hours ago | comment | added | BoltStorm | @DarkMalthorp I never thought of it like that, the notion I got is that it's emergent. That asking where in the brain it's located is asking the wrong question. | |
| 8 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | @BoltStorm The assumption is that the self, if it is exists, must exist within the cells of the body, is not correct. Actually, the idea that the self is not made out of the material of the body is nothing new and such scientific experiments don't threaten any of the several traditional ideas about the soul that I'm aware of. | |
| 15 hours ago | comment | added | BoltStorm | 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 | |
| 20 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | @JD Thanks :) I upvoted yours as well. | |
| 20 hours ago | comment | added | J D | 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 | |
| 20 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | @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. | |
| 20 hours ago | comment | added | J D | +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? | |
| 21 hours ago | history | edited | Dark Malthorp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 2 characters in body
|
| 22 hours ago | history | answered | Dark Malthorp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |