From: M T (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 10 2007 - 11:46:30 MST
With the acknowledgment of the illusion, there isn't an independent "real" self, as you need the whole system to produce the "self".
The perception of ones own self is part of the self. If you locate the structures or systems in the brain that produce this self perception and shut them down (if at all possible), you wouldn't get a more "real" self. Just a different self.
Also, other humans will always have a snippet of data regarding your "self". And then again mostly (well... totally) assumptions. Nothing to do with what you actually have in your brain, except if you factor in your own perception of what other humans perceive as you, which is again a sub-system of your brain.
If you don't acknowledge the illusion, the question turns bad and will yield a bad answer as Jef says in his other post.
On 11/10/07, Stefan Pernar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Here is my question:
> What is the real me independent from how I perceive myself and how I
> being perceived by other humans?
Good question, highlighting the meta-question of what could it
possibly mean to be more 'real' than that. [Acknowledging the
naturally expected illusion of an intrinsic self functioning as the
effective locus of intentionality.]
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:00 MDT