>and don't actually exist out there in reality...

Then again, Zen is very pragmatic and would say you'd best duck when an 
'object' comes hurtling your way. This is why, after all, mountains really are 
mountains...

Mike

--- On Sat, 26/5/12, Edgar Owen <[email protected]> wrote:

From: Edgar Owen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Zen] The Self Illusion
To: [email protected], [email protected], 
[email protected], [email protected]
Date: Saturday, 26 May, 2012, 2:38
















 



  


    
      
      
      ED,
The self we are all familiar with is as you say a mental construct in our 
mind's simulation of reality. Actual sensory input comes into organisms in 
fragmented bits such as color, motion, shapes, etc. As the mind develops in 
infancy these sensory bits are gradually organized by the mind into larger more 
persistent constructs such as objects, one of which is the self. There is a lot 
of research by cognitive scientists on how and when this occurs in childhood 
but cognitive scientists assume mind just begins recognizing the objects that 
actually exist out there in reality. Buddhist on the other hand claims that the 
objects are all mental constructs and organizations of raw input from external 
reality and don't actually exist out there in reality...
There is also a lot of information about how the concept of objects arises from 
developments in robotics. It turns out it is very very difficult to construct 
(robotics calls it identify) objects from raw sensory input.... For example 
most objects produce very very different sensory input depending on their 
orientation and distance from the eyes so it takes very sophisticated mental 
software to identify all those different perceptual views as the same object, 
especially against all sorts of different backgrounds...
So direct experience consists solely of sensory input momentary in the present 
moment. The whole idea of persistent objects including the self is a mental 
construct and as Zen would say an illusion not actually present in the external 
(real) world.
Edgar


On May 25, 2012, at 10:29 AM, ED wrote:















 



    
 
Excerpt:"In what sense is the self an illusion? For me, an illusion is a 
subjective experience that is not what it seems. Illusions are experiences in 
the mind, but they are not out there in nature. Rather, they are events 
generated by the brain. Most of us have an experience of a self. I certainly 
have one, and I do not doubt that others do as well – an autonomous individual 
with a coherent identity and sense of free will. But that experience is an 
illusion – it does not exist independently of the person having the experience, 
and it is certainly not what it seems. That's not to say that the illusion is 
pointless. Experiencing a self illusion may have tangible functional benefits 
in the way we think and act, but that does not mean that it exists as an 
entity. If the self is not what it seems, then what is it?For most of us, the 
sense of our self is as an integrated individual inhabiting a body. I think it 
is helpful to distinguish between the two
 ways of thinking about the self that William James talked about. There is 
conscious awareness of the present moment that he called the "I," but there is 
also a self that reflects upon who we are in terms of our history, our current 
activities and our future plans. James called this aspect of the self, "me" 
which most of us would recognize as our personal identity—who we think we are. 
However, I think that both the "I" and the "me" are actually ever-changing 
narratives generated by our brain to provide a coherent framework to organize 
the output of all the factors that contribute to our thoughts and behaviors. I 
think it helps to compare the experience of self to subjective contours – 
illusions such as the Kanizsa pattern where you see an invisible shape that is 
really defined entirely by the surrounding context. People understand that it 
is a trick of the mind but what they may not appreciate is that the brain is 
actually generating the neural
 activation as if the illusory shape was really there. In other words, the 
brain is hallucinating the experience. There are now many studies revealing 
that illusions generate brain activity as if they existed. They are not real 
but the brain treats them as if they were. Now that line of reasoning could be 
applied to all perception except that not all perception is an illusion. There 
are real shapes out there in the world and other physical regularities that 
generate reliable states in the minds of others. The reason that the status of 
reality cannot be applied to the self, is that it does not exist independently 
of my brain alone that is having the experience. It may appear to have a 
consistency of regularity and stability that makes it seem real, but those 
properties alone do not make it so. Similar ideas about the self can be found 
in Buddhism and the writings of Hume and Spinoza. The difference is that there 
is now good psychological and physiological
 evidence to support these ideas that I cover in the book in a way that I hope 
is accessible for the general reader."Source: 
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-illusion-of-the-self2 



    
     

    










    
     

    
    






  








Reply via email to