Tim Bayne - What are Selves?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 сер 2021
- What does it mean to be a “self”? What characteristics distinguish a self from a non-self? What are the boundaries between self and non-self? Is there a difference between a self and a person? What follows from the existence of selves?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on the mystery of consciousness: bit.ly/3dXa9uD
Tim Bayne received his undergraduate education from the University of Otago, New Zealand, and his graduate education at the University of Arizona. He taught at Macquarie University, Sydney from 2003 until 2006, and at the University of Oxford from 2007 until 2012.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
One of the very best channels on this platform. There's pure gold in every single video.
What, in your opinion, makes this particulate video 'gold'?
agree..
@@OdjoAdja
Why? I mean, it's thought provoking stuff (unless the naturalistic view is correct - and there is no actual "we" doing the thinking), but I'm not sure what is meant by "pure gold". _What would be an example of what you're calling "pure gold"?_
in the sense of video production with the cinematic touch I agree for award 'pure gold', in the sense of content to broad our perspective about other thought is also 'pure gold' whether we agree or not..😊
@@OdjoAdja
Oh, so you only meant production, not content? (Otter thought? Was that an auto correct issue?) Okay. Gotcha. I'm sure that's what Vinicius meant too! 🤪
there's a kind of synchronicity on this channel between content and cinematography works, it so wonderful..
exactly--even when I don't care for the person being interviewed, I still like Robert and the cinematography too!
never get's old seeing this guy on his journey
Yes - but I feel he's seeing so many trees now he can't step back and see the whole forest.
@@richardventus1875 could not be more right, i agree fully.
Bad thing is the journey never ends.or it could be a good thing.my outlook on it is a dark long road.but I'm taking the journey forever on that same dark long road.
pure gold. this channel has enriched my intellectual yearnings to no end. I'm so thankful for it.
PLEASE keep making amazing content. Great video, good sir.
Too many white people
The truth is within us and it is also outside of us as well. The truth sits at the heart of everything.
Truth is a language construct.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I believe the truth is eternal and existed before we or any of our languages came into existence. All languages depend on the truth but the truth doesn't depend on any of our systems of language. Language is likely to be a construct of evolution.
@@radiometer It matters not what you believe.
Truth is a concept not an object.
"Language is likely to be a construct of evolution." may or may not be a true statement.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL I think our beliefs are important because they can have a big bearing on our lives and the way we live but I think only the truth will matter in the end. The truth is much more than just a concept or idea. The truth encompasses all of reality itself. It would even be impossible to lie about anything if it wasn't for the truth.
@@Armando7654 I am not familiar with Structuralism. But thanks, I'll look into it. If you're right perhaps I'll find like minded people.
I don't think I got any closer after this one.
Best comment I've seen on the Internet in a while. And very apt
That was so good I want more
Self is the summation of all experiences, internal and externally sourced. Each time we have an experience we individualize the experience, held and processed as a mental representation, through association with our body in context at that time.
i think "person" is in relation to personality, a persons personality may change a lot and we would think of them as different people almost, saying "i dont know you anymore" or "ur not the same *person* i knew before" but they would be the same self, which i think "self" is in relation with conciousness, i am still mySELF even if my personality changes, but i wouldnt be the same PERSON, thats how i view this.
dear mr. closer to truth...it would be lovely to know the orignal dates of these very interesting interviews...for the bigger picture...thank you kindly....from berlin
It's interesting that guy says it's pathology to realize my thoughts are not my own. On the other hand it's basic meditation practice to realize we are NOT the thinker of our thoughts and that self is a mental construct itself
Selves are people , but persons aren’t selves just constructs of selves.
Universe is expressing itself in a form of self. So when we see the world we are stearing back at ourselves.
In-dividual is in-divisble from the environment.
Yes, that's the reason science is not world explanation, it is self intervention, for reason of self transformation and realization. In science the subject of knowledge (self) steps next to itself, substracts itself from the bill, in a way of self alienation, to intervene on itself. ✌️
What we should inquire about is the fact that while we have been always around with a physical self and a mental one, now we have also digital selves for the first time in human history, and the implications of that are quite vast..
Language and writing long ago enabled our immaterial thoughts to congeal outside of our bodies. The digital is merely another realm in which our thoughts can float around among us.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL Yes but the cognitive implications are considerably different, and it is a mistake to approach this historic memetic mutation using a 'merely another'-based approach.
It would be analogous to the mistake we committed before the advent of internet, thinking internet was 'just another tech / communication tool'.
@@diegokricekfontanive Yes, you are quite right, typing 'merely' was a mistake and not at all reflective of my understanding. The unconscious is a curious beast.
I've definitely noticed significant changes in the psychology of those with cell phones.
"Childhood's End" has long influenced me and I've recently had thoughts along the lines of imagining cell phones to be the synapses of a nascent human hive mind.
Interesting eco effects. Professor sounds like A.I.
3:38 Is he talking about Ahankara/ego component of the Mind?
Good question? What is the I? How is it created?
Is the self an organism changing with time?
Yes but note the self organism has an abstract nature
consisting of an organized collection of thoughts
which are themselves abstract entities
instantiated as the discharge frequencies of neurons
serving as the means to encode experience
which can be and are adjusted in value by other thoughts
via the synapses that interconnect them.
The Audio of your videos is somehow corrupt.... I think its either the way/microphone you use record the discussion guest...or it's some kind of systematic error during editing/post production. I recognised this in many videos, Roberts voice sounds good, his interview partners sound crappy, like multiple audio tracks with a slight delay. Hard to listen to.
The selfs are "created" through renunciations in thinking or consciousness, through dimming and shadowing consciousness, so to say, a shrunken self, so it is consciousness not on its own height. ✌️
I suppose "self" for every individual one is one internal subjective reality or experience(thinking, imagination, belief, feeling .. world view.) in one conscious mind/heart and the true "person" is the translation of one internal reality to one external being - personality (characters, behavior and actions....is not physical appearance/nature of course) if not one only actings.
What do you mean by "subjective reality"? Doesn't seem like those two terms really go together. 'Subjective' and 'reality'...
I rarely see you interview eastern philosophers. Would be interesting to hear what Zen Buddhist have to say on the topic
A Zen Buddhist, but also a Theravada Buddhist. In particular, one that follows the Pali Canon or early dhamma.
Kudos -- 444 Gematria -- 🗽
By divine coincidence I discovered your content today and feel grateful for that, it is glorious! However, as a filmmaker I have some constructive feedback in that the aesthetic device you are using in the "form" of your presentation is severely interfering with the function of the content. Specifically, the style of camera movement you are deploying in these conversations is extremely distracting, it creates noise where we need silence for signal. This doesn't mean you need completely static shots, a very small amount of movement feels organic and natural, like the camera is "breathing," but the odd parallax panning and sliding framing that causes the background to shift, constantly changing our visual perspective, is VERY distracting. If this is intentional as a literary device, it is overwrought. If it is an attempt at sophistication in the cinematic arts, frankly, to a professional eye it feels very amateur-the same way a freshman painfully modeling the syntax of a favorite author from a 100 level syllabus feels very amateur to the professor. You will be much better off using static shots and adding the "handheld movements" in your post production using presets or plugins. Let the on-screen diegetic content instruct your aesthetic choices. For example, the parallax movement is justifiable to indicate a transition from one speaker to the next.
Is there a self gene?
The difficulty with self knowledge or self recognition is, that it is exactly about the in principle invisible! 😉
"Observe your self! That's the word of the snake!" (*Kafka)
What’s up with the audio? The host sounds normal, the guest sounds double-tracked, hard panned left and right
Fascination Street
Humans created language by defining things with names through words and combining them to sentences. Now the individual understanding of words in a message is often misinterpreted so that a correct result might fail.
Due to the many picked up informations that plays a big role in our conversations and thoughts, our brain prepares that what it has best from its understanding, to questions or explanations in a dialogue.
The best argument for the time being wins a debate, but it still doesn't mean it's right.
First we have to solve our true selves, using our own thoughts, our own experiences and separate instructed thinking to all day topics.
Part of ourselves is perception including imagination and senses and feelings and emotions
@@kelvinlord7192 perception, imagination, comes after the brain has informations to work with. No informations no conscious realizations, just an astonished mind. Our senses deliver continuously informations to the brain, which registers and configures the informations, how exactly is not known yet, but it projects what we as consciousness understand.
When we are born, there's a list of what we will become aside of being a human. The color of your hair, eyes, skin, your size, male or female, and some inherited characteristics.
Most of how we act and think are instructed and influenced informations. So at a daily basis we're using influenced informations.
How accurate would it be to say that atoms and DNA are a form of information ?
@@kelvinlord7192 Yes I agree, it's part of our building blocks, that's why we are unique but connected to a mentality of our kind. This are also informations carrier, as well as our blood and heart.
@@kelvinlord7192 It would be perfectly accurate to say that,
if the atoms and DNA are made into ink
that's been used to write a meaningful sentence.
Something is wrong with the sound mix.
Each human owns and is responsible for self and its actions. #SelfOwnership
Most of the questions of philosophy are linguistic. We need language to think, yet it it prevents us from thinking clearly. Does the word "infinity" define what itself means? Some infinities are infinitely larger than others. The list of all numbers vs. those divisible by 3.44 for example.
'Infinity' is a shorthand label used to describe sets of number series that have no end. Subsequently Infinity does not have a specific value. Kyle Hill had a cute equation over on his site recently where someone had written out, "infinity - infinity = 0". While it can be true for certain types of infinity, it can also be false for others.
I remember as a child, ruminating in the back seat of our family car, while my mother went to do the shopping: "Dad said that brains are just computers. What if I encountered someone with my exact wiring and software? Which one of us would be the real me?" This relates to the question of... let us call it... identicality.
Fast forward to 2021, and my conjectures have matured. I now realize that far from being computers, brains are better understood, from the perspective of agency theory, as colonies (of neurons). But the question of identicality still remains. Identicality is relevant, because atoms and molecules can be shown to be perfectly identical to others of their kind. What happens if, when I die, my DNA is replicated identically, elsewhere in this vast universe? Will my self be reborn into this alien body that has my identical DNA?
This is no idle conjecture. Physicist John Wheeler first conjectured on the possible implications of the one-electron universe. But identicality applies, I assume, to any positron, atom or molecule. Does it apply also to DNA? Does it need to? What is it, indeed, that distinguishes one self from another? When we die, what's to dispute that our selves don't get reborn elsewhere in the universe?
Just because you don't remember your previous life does not mean that you did not have one (a variation on this theme... just because you don't remember your dream last night does not mean that you did not have one). And in your rebirth after you die, expect not to remember this life. Information cannot travel faster than light, and so all the information that you've accumulated over the course of a lifetime will cease to exist. But nonlocality, entanglement and the nonlocal self, that's another question entirely. Nonlocality is instantaneous. Vanish here, pop up over there, no time delay.
Might the one-electron universe have implications for the nonlocal, reincarnated self?
ua-cam.com/video/9dqtW9MslFk/v-deo.html
For some reason I thought it said sleeves and I was going to be introduced to a history on when arm coverings became popular on garments... I'm a little disappointed
I can add another new theory, which is just theory. Based on the idea that the entire physical world is made of a single electron circulating through time and space, there may be just one conscious being living through multiple lives throughout history of animated matter. In a sense, you and I are the same person occupied different time and space.
In corporations a self includes many selves.
Is there something wrong with the audio... when this guy speaks..it sounds as if two people were speaking...
Thes sound is very strange. Some echo is hearing.
At first glance, thought it said " what are sleeves?". Lol
Know thy shelf.
What are selves. Me, myself and I.
I wish Robert can interview Eckhart Tolle on this subject
I think he's spoken to quite enough white people, thankyou very much *BLACK LIVES MATTER*
@@jasonteam2057 lol!
@@jasonteam2057 The more appropriate response would be to list those Black philosophers whom Mr Kuhn could interview. Can you name some, since the team that makes this program does read these comments from time to time?
@@tanshihus1 it's not my job to educate you
@@jasonteam2057 Who would you like them to interview?
"Selfness." "Self-icity."
What are shelves
Who is thinking?
Confused.
Person comes from word persona mask. The self is the one behind the representations
Selves means of thought of highly conscious one mind.
One thought from all bodies.
What you've written are not sentences.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Yes this is collection of words.🙂
@@ujjwalbhattarai8670 If a collection of words are not in the form of a sentence then it is unlikely that they are able to communicate a thought.
If English is not your native language then I am sympathetic to your predicament.
I certainly wish that I could speak many languages and know different cultures for then I would lead a richer life.
Carry on and best of luck to you.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL
Thank you so much. ❣
I'll start to learn English from today and within 1 week I'll write English in perfect sentences.
There is only one Self, one "subject of knowledge", for that Living (that transforms and realizes itself) humans are something like "living building bricks". And every person has to work and serve for it, even if the person don't want that. Some old myths explained, that once the big Self fragmented into small and shrunken selfs. 😉
Just as in the video, you have provided no explained of what a self is.
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL The self is the uncatchable subject of knowledge, the in principle invisible! "I" am always bigger than everything you can demonstrate on to me! 😎
@@neffetSnnamremmiZ
I am my self.
My self is conscious.
My self is conscious beyond an instant.
Thus my self is being conscious.
My self gradually changes.
Thus my self is also a process.
Thus I am a being conscious process.
Process is an abstract concept.
Thus I am an abstract being conscious process.
My body is my substrate, for any process needs a substrate to be the process of.
Thus I must include my body in my definition for without it I am nothing.
Thus I am an abstract being conscious process of my body.
Some of the changes that the world induces in my self constitute the very essence of the meaning of the word conscious.
My self is in the world and so I make an impression on my self and this is the cause of my being self conscious.
Approximately.
the self is an illusion given byvthe brain to help us navigate this experience of individuality, the only real self is the godself and its the only one out there
That's the difficulty with self knowledge, it is exactly about the principially invisible! 😉
I thought this video was 'what are sleeves'
What if it turns out that the dualists and traditionally religious were right all along about the existence of souls? In our smugness and stubborn insistence that we remain affixed to a materialist paradigm, we have tied ourselves up into intellectual knots in order to deny the obvious.
There's only one self
All living things are like reflections of this Self
As long as our mind assumes that we are this body our suffering continues
Your "self" is full of crap! LOL
@@jessebryant9233 that’s a bit harsh. But in essence, behind the insult, it’s actually quite true. The self is completely deluded. It thinks it’s a thing, and it thinks it’s distinct and different from all other things. It even thinks everything happens inside it. When it gets a sense of itself, it is trying to make itself an object, when, it is supposedly a subject which cannot be known.
All happens inside this self, nothing is apart from this self. Therefore, there is no distinction between this self, and objects. There is only a seeming separation when this self takes itself to be a separate thing. So in that sense, there is no self apart from anything. The separate self is an appearance. Everything is an appearance. Even suffering is an appearance. There is no separate self to which suffering could be happening. If the self apparently suffers due to an apparent separation between itself and objects. To the absolute, it’s all illusion, including the self.
@@Mevlinous
Is that your "self" talking? LOL And... "It thinks"? Does it now? ROTFL [smh]
@@jessebryant9233 if “I” “have” a self, then the self is different to what I am. So what am I that has a self.
@@Mevlinous
You can't possibly know that if your "self" is, as you claim, "completely deluded"... So, what do you mean by "I"? And what is the difference between yourself and your I and what is it that you are that is an I that has a self? LOL [smh]
What is the self ?
The self is actually the counterpart of the unity. What i mean by that, is that everything is consciousness “also called God in religion” and we delimited ourself from that whole consciousness as an I. Thats the reason why we can only consciously know the polarity instead of unity “God”. To understand that better, lets say we finding ourselves on an infinite field “consciousness” and on that field we building a wall around us. Everything that is inside that wall is the area where everything is known to us and everything outside from the wall is the unknown for that individual “again a polarity”. This area is from human to human different “some larger, some smaller” and will logically change in your own life. Minerals, plants and animals do also have there own area but far smaller than ours, because it is an evolution process of the consciousness and we already made a long way to come where we are. So actually EVERYTHING is taking from the one and only SAME consciousness. Like the Hindus are already saying, it is not my consciousness but our consciousness, because there is only one. We have our memories, thoughts, our own experience but that doesn’t count for consciousness.
Is there a difference between the self and a person?
Of course, because the person is only a small timeline of our self. The self is the whole chain of lives as a person is only that one physical life that you are living for the moment. Compare it to a chain with alot of pearls on it. One pearl is a person where you can have alot of PERSONalities and the individual “self” is the chain with all pearls on it that is still in the making to be completed.
You turn "conscious", a word that refers to an abstract entity,
into something (a field) essentially equivalent to materiality
and thereby make your statement utterly incoherent.
You got me wrong, because the field was put as an example, lets say an analogy, so that you could imagine it better, but you can never imagine how consciousness looks like. Profane words can’t explain the sacral. I never said the field is consciousness. Its like an artist gives you his view, feelings as a piece of music, sculpture, picture and so on, because this is a better explanation than words.
Do you understand that ?
@@stevenw1723 I think so.
This is what I think about it...
I am my self.
My self is conscious.
My self is conscious beyond an instant.
Thus my self is being conscious.
My self gradually changes.
Thus my self is also a process.
Thus I am a being conscious process.
Process is an abstract concept.
Thus I am an abstract being conscious process.
My body is my substrate, for any process needs a substrate to be the process of.
Thus I must include my body in my definition for without it I am nothing.
Thus I am an abstract being conscious process of my body.
Some of the changes that the world induces in my self constitute the very essence of the meaning of the word conscious.
My self is in the world and so I make an impression on my self and this is the cause of my being self conscious.
Approximately.
And like the Hindus know, if you recognize the big Self (God), it will retain you, will take you to "him", you don't need to be born again in the circle. As soon as every soul has arrived there, then God (the one Self of all Selfs) will be all in all (again).
Okay, a few questions:
1. Are you a brain or do you use a brain to think?
2. What does it mean to say "I think"?
3. What does it "mean" to be human?
4. What IS morality?
5. What is meant by "rights and responsibilities"?
ua-cam.com/video/59bVrg_iXFU/v-deo.html
@@ismailcihanpeker8119
Blah-blah-blah-blah... 🤥 😵🥊 😴💤
And did he say... "talisman"?
There's no such thing as a separate, individual "self," it's just an illusion created by the apparent continuity of thought, much like the actors on the screen in a movie are not "real," but are an illusion created by the frames of film moving through the projector (if they still use projectors, lol).
The self is the only thing that isn’t an illusion, at least with certainty.
I think you speak about the same, the big Self (self of all selfs) is not an illusion, only the selfs are something like an illusion..
@@MattHanr Where is this "self?" Can you point to it? Can you objectively identify it? Is it the same "self" as when you were 5, 10, 20, 50? No, of course not. It's even different minute to minute let alone over decades. That doesn't seem like such a substantial thing to me. That's more like a mirage than anything real, just a conglomeration of causes and conditions that you are mistakenly identifying as a "thing." In reality, it doesn't exist.
@@ricklanders I think you’re confusing self with person. The person isn’t the same at 5, 10, 15, 20. The body isn’t either. But the inner experience, the ‘me’ is the same. And just because something is real doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a ‘thing’, and doesn’t require one to be able to point at it. Those are irrelevant arguments
@@MattHanr Lol, I'm not confusing anything. If your internal experience is the same as a grown adult as it was when you were 3, 5. 10 years old, or even a teenager, or even as an infant, I feel really sorry for you, lol. The fact is, our internal landscape, experience, and condition is changing all the time.
Again, there is no solid substantial thing you're calling a "me," that sense of me-ness is an illusory phenomenon created by the apparent continuity of thought, like I described using the film metaphor.
Are you saying the actor on the screen actually exists there, as a tangible thing? No, of course it doesn't. It's an illusion created by the film passing through the projector. In a similar way, your sense of "you" is an illusion created by the thoughts constantly passing through your mind. It doesn't really exist as a tangible thing. Turn off the projector, and the actor on the screen disappears; and likewise turn off all the thoughts in your head, and this thing you call "you" disappears. If it were anything real, it wouldn't disappear. Because there's nothing really there but an illusion, it can disappear.
Notice that the *person* doesn't disappear, only the sense of me-ness, this sense of self. So ironically it's actually you who has confused the fact of a person with the illusion of a "self," lol. Ultimately the "person" is just a passing illusion, too, but while that's the same principle based on the apparent continuity of the constituent parts making it up, it's slightly different in that case as it does at least exist in this way materially, for a relatively very short while, at least.
There is no such thing as "the" self as an entity. If you could get a snapshot of your "self" perception at different ages, you would see radically different "selves." The "self" is constructed by our brain from memories and experiences and changes continually by small increments. There are cases of multiple personality disorder where multiple "selves" occupy the same brain. The perceived "self" consists of two internal felt sets of neural activity -- the "ego-self" and the "ego-less self." The "ego-self" is the main daily operating "self." It is driven by the senses and the limbic system and is subject to behaving in response to "lower-level" impulses (rage, greed, sex, violence, envy, etc.). The "ego-less self" is detached from the "ego-self" and operates as a living organism that is part of a virtual organism which is nature. When you do self-talk and say "I told myself that I wan't going to do that again," the "I" is the "ego-self" and the "myself" is the "ego-less self." Very few people realize that they have an "ego-less self" mental state."
In short, the self is a thought complex, yes?
@@REDPUMPERNICKEL In that "thoughts" are neural activity, so the "self" is neural activity.
Follow your thoughts that's we're the answer is.....universe contains 2 sides which is positively charged attractions and negatively charged attractions....so is the thoughts which planting every second second of ur life time....so with those thoughts u can only interact positively or negatively trikey part is either way you have to interact......so call GOD defination of this world is GUIDE to how to not to interact with it thoughts and become a singularity only then you can tuch the quantum field...
Sounds like a dozen 'selves' speaking simultaneously.
Focus on raising your consciousness Robert.
What does that even mean?
Fish experiencee self. All animals do.
Finite selves are illusions. Reality is one giant infinity and essentially non dual in nature.
Elaborate
How can you know that it's an illusion if you're trapped in it yourself? Entirely based on your own claim.
@@grattata4364 Some people just make empty gratuitous claims. They like to think of themselves as spiritual and wise, pretend to have DEEP knowledge, whatever that means. In fact they are just saying things. You can just say things too, or just make some gratuitous claims. Try it. It is free, and you do not need to prove anything. Just say some woowoo deepities:
"Intuition is only possible in deep experiences" or "The invisible is entangled in great destiny" or "The universe illuminates cosmic potentiality"
Just look at the common comments in these threads. Many just make woo woo claims. They conflate their own opinionated claims with eternal truth. The high horses they are on are as tall as skyscrapers.
@@andreasplosky8516 Couldn't say it better myself
@@andreasplosky8516 Thank you for the invitation; I think I'll do that right now.
I believe that Harmane has had more to do with the human condition than almost every other chemical known to mankind!
Has absolutely nothing to do with the argument of 'self' in this video but you left me such an alluring opening that I didn't want to waste it. Thanx!
Yeah, but there still has to be a metaphysical self, unless you think your illusory self is somehow being tricked into believing that it actually exists and has experiences despite the fact that it literally doesn't even exist! 👻
My pronouns are self/selves
😴
Small elves
gibberish
Am I the only one who gets a headache listening to the bearded guy talk? There's like a vocal overlap 😭
Everyone is commenting on the recent videos about the sound quality. I think that Lawrence has been looping his dialogues onto these older interviews.
Nothing special just an impermanent series of aggregates