First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
What is the 'Self'?
12664 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / InTheHeartOfTheWo...
Offline
Posted 2/24/10
"Cogito, ergo sum"

Commonly translated as "i think, therefore i am"
By Rene Descartes
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/25/10
I believe that I am an I-ness attached to a robot vehicle, a biological survival machine.
41 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / The world of Endl...
Offline
Posted 2/26/10
We are who we believe we are, and who we set our actions to be. We create who we are. "Who you are begins with what you do"-???
We are our actions, our beliefs, desires, hopes and dreams. We are our subconcious and our Conscience. We are not what others see. People are not who they are based on societies attempts to pin us down like an insect to a cork board. Our true selves escape the pin and fly free. Yet there are people who's true selves are hidden, behind a mask of artificiality. But the real them is in there somewhere, deep inside.
I see myself as I want to. This whole thing may have been clishe' but I believe it. We are not Marionettes to be controlled by the puppet masters of outside attempts to change us. Our core remain. We stand without strings, and Move without outside control. But we do this when we realize we are not theirs to control, to prod and mold into their own image. A slate of clay, we are to be molded by ourselves.
(Did this have a point? Yeah, It did.)
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/28/10
This is another topic that creates discussion through ambiguous wording. Are we to discuss one's personality? If yes, then the self is simply a result of the brain's workings. Philosophy here is inadequate. Philosophy often purports to explain things into existence, but the truth is that science, here, is much more adequate. It can better address the issue, and so I would say that in this field the days of philosophy are over.
Posted 2/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

This is another topic that creates discussion through ambiguous wording. Are we to discuss one's personality? If yes, then the self is simply a result of the brain's workings. Philosophy here is inadequate. Philosophy often purports to explain things into existence, but the truth is that science, here, is much more adequate. It can better address the issue, and so I would say that in this field the days of philosophy are over.
I think without a sense of "self" people cannot function well as social animals, they won't know individually what their strengths and weaknesses are for themselves. And social function would therefore grinds itself into a halt.

And when we assume how the human brain develops this self recognition process in stages, and the fact that it takes all kinds of mind for our society to function well. We'll be putting ourselves at great risk IMO, if we don't get the scientific theory of "self" down to a very natural and robust system.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/28/10

I think without a sense of "self" people cannot function well as social animals, they won't know individually what their strengths and weaknesses are for themselves. And social function would therefore grinds itself into a halt.


The OP is an inquiry into the definition of 'self'. The efficacy of its application has no bearing upon the definition of self.


And when we assume how the human brain develops this self recognition process in stages, and the fact that it takes all kinds of mind for our society to function well. We'll be putting ourselves at great risk IMO, if we don't get the scientific theory of "self" down to a very natural and robust system.


Again. This is an inquiry into the definition of 'self', not into the application of the information gained through such an inquiry.
Posted 2/28/10 , edited 2/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


I think without a sense of "self" people cannot function well as social animals, they won't know individually what their strengths and weaknesses are for themselves. And social function would therefore grinds itself into a halt.


The OP is an inquiry into the definition of 'self'. The efficacy of its application has no bearing upon the definition of self.


And when we assume how the human brain develops this self recognition process in stages, and the fact that it takes all kinds of mind for our society to function well. We'll be putting ourselves at great risk IMO, if we don't get the scientific theory of "self" down to a very natural and robust system.


Again. This is an inquiry into the definition of 'self', not into the application of the information gained through such an inquiry.
However, since neuron scientists had to first assume that there is a region in our brain which processes this information known as the "self". It was then able to quantify the effectiveness of this process, when they did located the exact region where this process takes shape.

In other words, long before we humans individually begin to question our own sense of selves, our brains OTOH had already evolved to gain the ability to recognize as well as quantify other individual selves. Therefore I hypothesize that as long as we continue to socialize, we need to individually construct our own sense of self as a vessel for social interactions.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/28/10 , edited 2/28/10

DomFortress wrote:
However, since neuron scientists had to first assume that there is a region in our brain which processes this information known as the "self". It was then able to quantify the effectiveness of this process, when they did located the exact region where this process takes shape.

In other words, long before we humans individually begin to question our own sense of selves, our brains OTOH had already evolved to gain the ability to recognize as well as quantify other individual selves. Therefore I hypothesize that as long as we continue to socialize, we need to individually construct our own sense of self as a vessel for social interactions.


How does that define 'self'?
Posted 2/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
However, since neuron scientists had to first assume that there is a region in our brain which processes this information known as the "self". It was then able to quantify the effectiveness of this process, when they did located the exact region where this process takes shape.

In other words, long before we humans individually begin to question our own sense of selves, our brains OTOH had already evolved to gain the ability to recognize as well as quantify other individual selves. Therefore I hypothesize that as long as we continue to socialize, we need to individually construct our own sense of self as a vessel for social interactions.


How does that define 'self'?
Natural and robust enough for ya?
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/28/10 , edited 2/28/10

DomFortress wrote:
Natural and robust enough for ya?


The sense of 'self' pre-exists any initiative to construct it. But more importantly, you can't talk about the attributes of 'self' before it is established what 'self' actually is, determining which would be the purpose of this topic.
Posted 2/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
Natural and robust enough for ya?


The sense of 'self' pre-exists any initiative to construct it. But more importantly, you can't talk about the attributes of 'self' before it is established what 'self' actually is, determining which would be the purpose of this topic.
The self is just a metaphysical vessel created from socially interacting with other selves. Therefore zero social interaction equals no sense of self at all, while everything from text only social interactions to full-contact real life social interactions represents a variety senses of self.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/28/10

DomFortress wrote:

The self is just a metaphysical vessel created from socially interacting with other selves. Therefore zero social interaction equals no sense of self at all, while everything from text only social interactions to full-contact real life social interactions represents a variety senses of self.


So the hermits of early Christianity had no sense of self. They were unable to distinguish themselves from, say, trees or fences or lakes.
Posted 2/28/10 , edited 2/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

The self is just a metaphysical vessel created from socially interacting with other selves. Therefore zero social interaction equals no sense of self at all, while everything from text only social interactions to full-contact real life social interactions represents a variety senses of self.


So the hermits of early Christianity had no sense of self. They were unable to distinguish themselves from, say, trees or fences or lakes.
Social interaction doesn't necessarily means with people only. That's why I included full-contact real life social interaction.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 2/28/10
Ok, define to me please what you do and what you do not consider social interaction. What other objects can you interact with?
Posted 2/28/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

Ok, define to me please what you do and what you do not consider social interaction. What other objects can you interact with?
Anything and everything can cause social interactions, when it doesn't even needs to be real or physical. Therefore even imagination itself can provide stimulants for us to interact with socially. It's called imaginary play.
First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.