30 May 11
Maybe this will prove to be more interesting than time.
It seems silly to ask this question, but in the light of what is spiritual, what gives us individual identity?
I'm not talking about the obvious. I'm referring to that part of us that gives us conscientiousness of self.
What a weird statement. Does anyone know what I'm talking about because I sure don't!
I am aware of my own unique autonomous self as distinct from anything else I'm aware of.
Is that my identity? Or is there something more? Is it my self that gives me awareness of my self?
Surely my ID is something more than just the summation of neurological activity.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
31 May 11
Originally posted by josephwI like this from wikipedia, as a response to the reductionist "summation of neurological activity" that you, too, seem to reject.
Maybe this will prove to be more interesting than time.
It seems silly to ask this question, but in the light of what is spiritual, what gives us individual identity?
I'm not talking about the obvious. I'm referring to that part of us that gives us conscientiousness of self.
What a weird statement. Does anyone know what I'm talking about because I ...[text shortened]... self?
Surely my ID is something more than just the summation of neurological activity.
"The no-self theory
"Another view of personal identity is known as the no-self theory. According to this view the self cannot be reduced to a bundle because the concept of a self is incompatible with the idea of a bundle. This is because the idea of a bundle implies the notion of bodily or psychological relations that do not in fact exist. A principle exponent of this view is James Giles. Giles argues that the no-self or eliminativist theory and the bundle or reductionist theory are in agreement about the non-existence of a substantival self. The reductionist theory, however, makes the mistake of attempting to resurrect the idea of the self in terms of various accounts about psychological relations. The no-self theory, on the other hand, 'lets the self lie where it has fallen'.[3]This is because the no-self theory is a rejection of all theories of the self, even the bundle theory. On Giles' reading, Hume is actually a no-self theorist and it is a mistake to attribute to him a reductionist view like the bundle theory. This reading is supported by Hume's famous assertion that personal identity is a fiction. On this account the Buddhist view of personal identity is also a no-self theory rather than a reductionist theory. This is because the Buddha clearly rejects all attempts to reconstruct the self in terms of consciousness, feelings, or the body.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_%28philosophy%29#The_no-self_theory
31 May 11
Originally posted by JS357Mercy!
I like this from wikipedia, as a response to the reductionist "summation of neurological activity" that you, too, seem to reject.
"The no-self theory
"Another view of personal identity is known as the no-self theory. According to this view the self cannot be reduced to a bundle because the concept of a self is incompatible with the idea of a bundle. This ...[text shortened]... 4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_%28philosophy%29#The_no-self_theory
31 May 11
Originally posted by JS357J. Giles was a band. 😞
I like this from wikipedia, as a response to the reductionist "summation of neurological activity" that you, too, seem to reject.
"The no-self theory
"Another view of personal identity is known as the no-self theory. According to this view the self cannot be reduced to a bundle because the concept of a self is incompatible with the idea of a bundle. This ...[text shortened]... 4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_%28philosophy%29#The_no-self_theory