I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone in the comments section. I love the fact that people are engaging (positive or negative) with the content. I am amazed by the perspectives or the insight that some of you get that I completely miss myself. My guests (many of them very distinguished as in this case) come on the podcast unpaid, unrehearsed, and mostly unedited to talk about ideas that they developed, or that they themselves are working over. If this content gives you a moment to think about some new ideas (even if you think they are all bs in the end), then that makes me really truly happy. Thank you! :)
The self, along with the "other," subject/object, space, time, inside, outside, consciousness, and everything else to boot are mass hallucinations. Lol
Good interview. Just some thoughts: "I think therefore I am." Does not presuppose the existence of the physical mind. It could be what is inside my skull, or it could be larger than the perceived universe. If you allow for one element of "reality" to be fictitious, all of it must be assumed fictitious. I understand the concept of the self being fictitious in the realm of distinguishing between that which we perceive as having a physical form and that which we don't perceive as having a physical form. ...but the language used to make that distinction is ill defined, and therefore confusing, to the common man. (The person not schooled for years in, and not dealing with these concepts on a daily basis.) Science explains the world we live in, but it should be explained in a way that is not just for the schooled. Free will is a perfect example of something being ill defined. If you consider free will as the ability to do anything, we cannot think of something we have no concept of. So that is impossible. But, free will as the ability to identify the motivators affecting you, and being able to choose to go against those motivators... That is a more accurate description of our free will. Discussing the fear of death in the context of a sense of self is a distracting conflation of "what it is" and "what it does". Makes defining or understanding it difficult. The sense of self is a persistent perspective in our memories and our senses as they are evaluated from the process of our physical mind that receives condensed inputs from memories, subconscious and unconscious processes of our physical mind. That is why we can lose all of our limbs, but it is still us. We could also replace our bodies in whole and the perspective would not change. Only what it perceives as "my body" would change. The sense of self is a conflation of two distinct items. 1) Opponent processing. The ability to distinguish between the lion jumping out of the bushes at you and the thing you are trying to keep alive, your body. And 2) a persistent perspective from your senses and memories. So, eliminating memories will destroy all but the "in the moment" distinction between an opponent and yourself. Thereby destroying the conflation we call "a sense of self". A sense of control that he talks about is what consciousness does, not what it is. "Redness" ... opponent processing. We look for change. No need to spend resources on something that is not a threat to our survival. Evolutionarily, we did not know when our next influx of resources will come. So we had to conserve resources as much as possible. He actually said "...which proves that conscious processing is a form of intelligence." As I listen, it shows more and more that he has a pretty nebulous concept of consciousness and a sense of self. Therefore, he is using ambiguous terminology which is leading to lack of clarity and uncertainty about the precise concept or function he is talking about. Thus, there is a large amount of unnoticed conflation between "what it is" and "what it does". He is obviously very intelligent, I just wish he was more clear. The sense of control over our body is a misconception. Our body has subconscious Processes that we can direct, like when you stumble while walking. You can "take control" by directing where to place each footstep, but we are not controlling the saline levels of each cell to cause the proper electrical conductivity to be able to activate each muscle fiber in each muscle group to accurately move your leg and feet to achieve the proper placement of each foot. We also have unconscious processes that we cannot take control of. Like the functioning of your liver. Our consciousness is a process that allows us to evaluate memory and sensory inputs to construct a predictive model of the world and derive solutions to potential problems in the future. Our body is not under the control of our consciousness. If a lion jumps out at you from a bush, and you had to wait for your consciousness to process that information and direct a response, you would be too slow and die. That is part of the reason we have unconscious processes that bypass the cortex. Also resource conservation. The cortex is a resource hog. So we shunt everything we can to a subconscious or unconscious process to save resources. The upside of our existence is that when we learn the basic motivators of ourselves as humans, we can then create a life that is full of meaning and purpose and a sense of more joy than pain. Basically, we can be happy and fulfilled.
Wonderful to hear Thomas. His new book is brilliant and I would love to hear him or you talk with Loch Kelly who is quoted in Thomas's book about how to experience pure consciousness.
I remember exactly when I understood the concept of death. I was nine and sat in the bathtub sobbing. What was even more upsetting was that my parents didn't seem to understand the severity of this problem.
The only thing that undergoes death is the false self, the persona, the ego. Your true Self is immortal, was never born and can never die but is eternal and unchanging. Peace.
I remember, I think my hamster had just died and I just assumed I needed to get him warm so I put a stuffed animal over his corpse (think my mother thought I was odd), and later that night I was in bed and was staring into the darkness and realized I would soon be in the same position in a coffin ... Think I was roughly 6-7 but I wasn't sad, just was realizing it.
Maybe so, but here my challenge for you - learn the type of inquiry done in Buddhism and some other eastern traditions (See either of the two books by Christiane Michelberger, the Key to Awakening and How to See Through Self) and diligently and persistently do this inquiry. If you do this honestly, with an open mind, you will eventually see it for yourself quite clearly. It will not require anyone else to explain or prove it. Metzinger only gets it intellectually. To understand this deeply, in an intuitive way is altogether different. Until you've done this for yourself, you can't say with honesty, that self exists or doesn't.
You both need to study Vedanta and understand the difference between the real self (atma) and the egoic sense of 'I ness' (ahamkara). It explains things far more lucidly than anything you both say here.
The reason the illusion of the self (a seemingly independent, willful entity) is useful to us is to have motivation. Humans retain only a few instincts. We gain flexibility in our response to environment and circumstances by being able to edit the type of triggers for our reactions. But with so few innately assigned triggers, we would have no reason to act or edit the triggers.
What about that it is necessary for me to think of you as an agent or a self who is interacting with me in positive or negative ways. If I didn't think of myself as an agent or self, could I respond and plan how to interact with you? To be an agent or a self means to have needs and goals, such as survival. I WANT to get what I need. So the self is a by product of our need. No need, no self. I believe there are conditions under which people starve themselves, for instance.
@@johnstewart7025 The problem is that the development of that individual (who needs individuality to create a strategy to defend himself or attack his fellow creatures) occurs simultaneously with that of his friend/enemy. The need to have a tool cannot be prior to the problem it solves. It cannot be its cause. People do not react to threats to their survival according to a rational analysis. All living creatures have needs. "Wanting" is the result of certain neurochemicals and its production does not depend on the illusion of individuality.
@@johnstewart7025 In my opinion, the "I" is an illusion in the sense that there is nothing that corresponds to that supposed entity. It is a misconceptualization that is very useful. The activity of the mind that we interpret as "I" is the representation of our inner and outer environment. That defines a POV that, incorrectly, we intuit corresponds to an individual entity. An implicit entity.
The self may not be fundamentally real but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist as an emergent phenomenon. It depends on the way you look at it. Most if not all things in the macroscopic world aren't fundamentally real.
I agree with this. This can be known through meditation and spiritual practice. The interesting thing is that there is something real, something of a universal self that is even more personal than the egoic self. Amituofo ☸️☯️☸️
my question exactly....when i get to where i was driving to, I always wonder why i need to be aware of the driving which I wasn't because i was so deep in thought.
Thank you great interview very informative, consciousness the ultimate reality, we are all one consciousness looking at itself through different avatars, reality is an illusion.
Is the self not a substance or whatever that can metaphysically hold itself in existence all by itself? Well, here's a thought experiment to prove that it might be. I might not have existed right now but someone else exactly like me could have existed in my place. The difference is metaphysical, nothing to do with anything inside this world, and if this distinction is possible then whatever it is is the self, the kind of self Metzinger says himself and 90% of philosophers don't believe in. The self only needs to exist in the now. Stability over time does not need to exist for it to be real. Then we are left with something that is very hard to deny because if you do then you must believe that anyone exactly like me would be metaphysically forced to be me, and that's even weirder.
Perhaps Metzinger is projecting his own Death anxiety regarding not quite trusting others that say they no longer have it. Awareness is immortal...but even the word immortal is a Time/Space dependant implication.
Thats probably because he does not identify his self with the things and others do. Very good observer as we all are only our tools and body are very limited in observing
@@a13xdunlop You seem to be using "nothing" in a different way than I am. However, the claim that "nothing" and "something" are the same is a contradiction.
I agree and feel the most invariant part of the self is the child that feels awe in perceiving the world. As long as it lives in you even if you're old or disabled this is the one that wants to live.
To go with it. Contiousness exists in the recent past. A story or narrative from the inputs. Rea tion times, and mental tasks time FMRI. The brain is not just good at patern recognition, but more. Like predictive modeling and analysis and reasoning. Feedback loops in the brain and from surounding environment inputs. 43:03 Hagels pit of despair.
Having a selfmodell doesn't necessarily mean that there is an experience of what it is like to be a self. Metzinger is so enjoyably smart but seems very influenced by the materialistic paradigm... would be great to connect him with Bernardo Kastrup.
Christof Koch has recently come to the conclusion that death might not be final after going on some crazy Ayahuasca journeys in South America. A dialogue with Dr Metzger and Dr Koch will be interesting 🤔
I got an idea when seeing the title of this video! Even if there is a self, did it create itself? Not according to ordinary logic at least. The only real personal self I see is the unique point of experience each person has. That's real! But a point is not something in itself, it cannot do anything. So, yes definitely, the idea of self as separate entity is an illusion as I see it.
The Self is not an illusion the idea we have about the Self is an illusion.. That is, we take the body and the mind and the ego as the Self while they are only vehicles.of expression.
There are different ways of using illusion. Way 1: "The appearance is mismatched to the reality, where the appearance and reality both exist but them matching isn't actually the case." Way 2: "The appearance doesn't really exist in reality." Given that, Metzinger would probably argue that the conscious brain produces a self model of itself which is mismatched to the much more complex dynamical reality of the present brain function. This mismatched self-model appearance gives the conscious organism MASSIVE savings in processing time and calories to more quickly react to changes in it's environment. In other words, the experience is actually the present brain function working in conjunction with a series of concealment functions which hide from the present brain function where it exists in physical reality and how it is operating to decrease processing time and caloric consumption in grasping it's own reality. This present brain function working with concealment functions creates the first person appearance. In other words, it is illusionism as misinterpretations through simplifications. These simplified misinterpretations are worth the decrease in accuracy and precision over the reality of present brain functions given the decrease in processing time and caloric consumption in grasping those misinterpreted simplifications to more quickly respond to changes within the environment.
LOL, stop paying your bills and see how long it takes to realize you are indeed by...your...self. Reality has a rude way of reminding you that discussing philosophical points and actually applying them to life in a meaningful way are two very different things.
What you say is true, however, perhaps he means that you do not exist apart from your body. In other words, no soul in a religious sense. But, then that is a matter of faith, not science or philosophy.
The “self” is an adaptation to living in a very individualized world. Humans are hardwired for collectivism though, which is why there is so much suffering in our current reality. Basically, we must live in opposition to our nature, like caged animals.
@@katieandnick4113 Loneliness can be defined as one who is detached from their self. Which is why you can be in a room full of people and still feel alone. Collectivism in my opinion is often misunderstood and overrated and when it has been forced upon people, it can have devastating effects which is why anyone who's done any depth of research into the history of purely socialist or communist systems of government can clearly see the problems associated with their application in any large scale. You can be a communist or a socialist in a capitalist system but you can't be a capitalist in a socialist or communist system. One system allows for freedom and the other does not. I once read an interesting viewpoint that once mankind stopped migrating with the weather as hunter gatherers and living in tribes, only acquiring what they could carry...once we stopped living in that manner and started farming, we built homes and began to acquire more than we needed... is when we took our first step away from nature. Ever since then, we have created and built more than we needed, took more from nature than we were allowed. In other words, the creation of any type of civilization was going to lead to where we are now. Unfortunately, this cage was built a long time ago and there is no going back, no matter if it's a collective or an individual based system. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Taken even further I'm afraid we're standing at the horizon of the end of humanity as we know it with the introduction of A.I., Now instead of fighting amongst ourselves over what way is the right way to live, we have a new challenge that comes presented as an answer to humanities problems. I wish I felt better about what that outcome is going to look like.
@katieandnick4113 we are caged in an individualistic world? That is an odd image. But I think I see what you mean. I also hear about high rates of loneliness. This is people seeking belonging or collective experience. I am also reminded of how US founders wanted individual rights, but also personal virtue. Belonging to virtuous organizations or group is a way to promote that quality.
He talks about volitional motor control, but that can not be found. Look for yourself. Try to find the moment of decision, and it's easy to see there isn't one. Any action we take arises all on its own. Try to actually find the moment of decision and you can't. Look carefully, very carefully after having thought about moving your hand. Wait, eventually the hand moves, but why? How? It just happens. Some will say, "Well, because there was a thought to do it" But we frequently act without *any* thought to do so. In that exact moment you moved your hand, how did that happen? As the Buddha explained, everything arises due to causes and conditions. Things arise out of the flow of causes and conditions, including the apparent intention, which doesn't require any will for that intention to arise. It's causes and conditions all the way down.
Please be someone - I presented myself to many teachers. Until one - took me to him - he knew that I was stuck and needed inner change and the heart - had to be freed - to learn to love. (Raja yoga meditation - India) My actual intentions also - those be the main issues, methinks. Been with said teachers for 43 yrs of meditation - good dynamic simple clear and effective. Hope your title - can be changed - by yourself. Each to his own, not so? Fare thee well - on life's journey.
The self does exist, it's linked to the subconscious where 95 % of the decisions are made. It does this by placing thoughts in the self So you don't own the self but you're it.😊
We all know that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. Wealth can be created and destroyed. Is there a finite amount of consciousness in the cosmos or is consciousness infinite? Consciousness can manifest itself, but can consciousness be destroyed?
No.Believe me.The self is transcendent.I can remember having transcendent reactions to the people and circumstances around me when I was as young as four years old.Another person would have reacted differently to these people and circumstances
Your own subjective experience is proof of free will. Modern science is trying to deny the existence of free will but personal experience destroys this view of no free will. Free will is not absolute and is higher in people who have a higher level of consciousness.
The self is a complex within a much greater or whole consciousness - the latter is what CG Jung termed the 'Self' capitalized with the lower case self being synonymous with the ego - that develops as a result of our differentiating ourselves from our experiences, emotions, identifications, which allows us to adapt and relate to ourselves, others, and the world in new ways. It's a process of conscious maturation and what Jung called individuation.
Humans cannot individuate. That is a myth. At best, we can become less fearful of ourselves, and by extension, of everyone else. But when that happens, we will cease to be able to function in a society built upon fear and hatred, so I guess it’s a no win.
Because wherever you go that's where you are. You might be making up what your self actually is. But with your brain your body is included. You believe this is either part of you or part of something else. It appears it being part of you won out for most people.
Have you heard of Tony Parsons ?who wrote a book called the open secret...Also shares there is nobody ...comes under the term non duality...everything is oneness
Imagine an ant in the hall of the great king opining and dining on crumbs. That is every one here. To make this idea of self tangible and palpable, i like what Mike tyson said, ' everyone has an idea in the ring until they get a fist in their face. That is also reality. The shock of it shocking one back to their senses. Most dont have time for metaphysical minutiae which will rationalise and speculate and separate interdisciplinary systems and functions. But never for long divorced from their body, as their mouth conveys it here.
The no self is an illusion allso 😅forget the dum word illusion, it doesn't serve wizedom 😮soul is wizer 😮or the experiencer that is you now reading this 😮its a chooser 😮it is you 😮and it is bound to a role and skin 😮its you the eternal role play gamer 😅you choose your selves to play in eternally 😅the purpose of life is enjoyment òf endless levels and frames 😅you are eternal beings 😅self can never be erased 😮only changed 😅one day you will realise this😮you have eternity to work it out 😅so relax and enjoy your gaming 😅😅😅
All thoughts and sensations arise and pass. There must be an unchanging frame of reference upon which all experience arise and pass. This unchanging Awareness is the Self. It is a special case of insanity indeed, to deny one's own existence, which is what Thomas is trying to do. It doesn't work Thomas, no matter what narrative you conjure up
He explains at the start that self is a misrepresentation. Existence isn’t a self, nowhere does he deny existence. Self gives rise to other, there is no other to reality. You exist, he isn’t saying you don’t exist, it’s just the “you” is a misrepresentation, what you think about reality is nothing but an interpretation and the painting you create will never be the landscape itself. Your “self” is no different than Harry Potter, it’s an image built on ideas.
@ProjectMoff That's where he's wrong. Existence is the Self. If there is a singular __________ that constitutes reality, and you exist, that ________ must be you. There is a singular observer, and that singularity is Self. These people saying there is no Self are using poor word choices. There is no separately existing individual self, that is true. But you most certainly exist. That which is looking through these eyes is that which is looking through those eyes
@@Nonconceptuality The Self of the singular observer is also an illusion. It doesn't exist as a Self. It's just existence. It's awareness, true, but there is nothing that exists as a self. Brahman/God/Whatever is no more real than a person. The self God experiences himself as being, is just another illusion. It doesn't exist. There is no Self. Whatever the absolute truth of reality actually is, is impossible to know. The sense of a self, or the knowing of it, will always be an object to whatever is sensing or knowing it. The "I am" is the original illusion. It doesn't matter if it is God knowing it or a person. Maybe, it's all coming down to semantics, or poor word choices. At this level in a discussion on reality it becomes almost impossible to explain what one is trying to say. Consciousness - meaning with knowledge (con scire) is also an illusion. It appears/happens when awareness 'becomes' aware of awareness, which is cannot but do. I guess it can be called meta-awareness - which is the mirror image of awareness. But the image in a mirror isn't the image. It just looks like it. That's the 'I am'. That's the Self. The rest follows from it 🙂 -or something like that.
@themadnorseman Thomas is confused. His model immediately collapses into nihilism. My Fundamental Model of Reality clears all of this up. Everyone is attempting to describe reality focusing only on the appearances. Reality plus the illusion is expressed by my triune 'other-of' model. It's SUPERPOSITION. And my model is the only one that recognizes this
I am thinking that what we imagine to be our self is mainly a product of our wanting and needing and desiring. We need to be able to imagine what "I" will do and what "you" will do. Besides that, there is no self. Under certain circumstances, people have starved themselves to death. And people who suffer deep depression say they feel as though their "self" is already dead. Committing suicide is just "taking out the trash."
@@johnstewart7025 no matter what you see you are before that. Your wishes, intentions etc come after that. How can you be something circumstantial if you exist before that circumstantion. Have you thought about that that you exist before all that shuff as an observer off all of that? You are aware of wish to imagine. No matter how you turn if, there is always you who does it, isn't it?
Bs Self îs something that grow but from God we shall receve a perfect self, wich can endure ethernal existence, a New name, name mins self. Apocalips, White peble with name on IT talk about that.
I just wanted to say a big thank you to everyone in the comments section. I love the fact that people are engaging (positive or negative) with the content. I am amazed by the perspectives or the insight that some of you get that I completely miss myself. My guests (many of them very distinguished as in this case) come on the podcast unpaid, unrehearsed, and mostly unedited to talk about ideas that they developed, or that they themselves are working over. If this content gives you a moment to think about some new ideas (even if you think they are all bs in the end), then that makes me really truly happy. Thank you! :)
Check out Thomas' new book, which is available for free: direct.mit.edu/books/oa-monograph/5725/The-Elephant-and-the-BlindThe-Experience-of-Pure
Absolute genius and ahead of his time
The self, along with the "other," subject/object, space, time, inside, outside, consciousness, and everything else to boot are mass hallucinations. Lol
bingo........took them over an hour to say it, though......ha....."chop wood, carry water....make video"
sure Japan and Germany with their progressive fascism and Italy too - the Self doesn't exist when you spread genocide with selflessness.
Good interview. Just some thoughts:
"I think therefore I am." Does not presuppose the existence of the physical mind. It could be what is inside my skull, or it could be larger than the perceived universe.
If you allow for one element of "reality" to be fictitious, all of it must be assumed fictitious.
I understand the concept of the self being fictitious in the realm of distinguishing between that which we perceive as having a physical form and that which we don't perceive as having a physical form. ...but the language used to make that distinction is ill defined, and therefore confusing, to the common man. (The person not schooled for years in, and not dealing with these concepts on a daily basis.) Science explains the world we live in, but it should be explained in a way that is not just for the schooled.
Free will is a perfect example of something being ill defined.
If you consider free will as the ability to do anything, we cannot think of something we have no concept of. So that is impossible. But, free will as the ability to identify the motivators affecting you, and being able to choose to go against those motivators... That is a more accurate description of our free will.
Discussing the fear of death in the context of a sense of self is a distracting conflation of "what it is" and "what it does". Makes defining or understanding it difficult.
The sense of self is a persistent perspective in our memories and our senses as they are evaluated from the process of our physical mind that receives condensed inputs from memories, subconscious and unconscious processes of our physical mind. That is why we can lose all of our limbs, but it is still us. We could also replace our bodies in whole and the perspective would not change. Only what it perceives as "my body" would change.
The sense of self is a conflation of two distinct items. 1) Opponent processing. The ability to distinguish between the lion jumping out of the bushes at you and the thing you are trying to keep alive, your body. And 2) a persistent perspective from your senses and memories.
So, eliminating memories will destroy all but the "in the moment" distinction between an opponent and yourself. Thereby destroying the conflation we call "a sense of self". A sense of control that he talks about is what consciousness does, not what it is.
"Redness" ... opponent processing. We look for change. No need to spend resources on something that is not a threat to our survival. Evolutionarily, we did not know when our next influx of resources will come. So we had to conserve resources as much as possible.
He actually said "...which proves that conscious processing is a form of intelligence." As I listen, it shows more and more that he has a pretty nebulous concept of consciousness and a sense of self. Therefore, he is using ambiguous terminology which is leading to lack of clarity and uncertainty about the precise concept or function he is talking about. Thus, there is a large amount of unnoticed conflation between "what it is" and "what it does". He is obviously very intelligent, I just wish he was more clear.
The sense of control over our body is a misconception. Our body has subconscious Processes that we can direct, like when you stumble while walking. You can "take control" by directing where to place each footstep, but we are not controlling the saline levels of each cell to cause the proper electrical conductivity to be able to activate each muscle fiber in each muscle group to accurately move your leg and feet to achieve the proper placement of each foot.
We also have unconscious processes that we cannot take control of. Like the functioning of your liver.
Our consciousness is a process that allows us to evaluate memory and sensory inputs to construct a predictive model of the world and derive solutions to potential problems in the future.
Our body is not under the control of our consciousness. If a lion jumps out at you from a bush, and you had to wait for your consciousness to process that information and direct a response, you would be too slow and die. That is part of the reason we have unconscious processes that bypass the cortex.
Also resource conservation. The cortex is a resource hog. So we shunt everything we can to a subconscious or unconscious process to save resources.
The upside of our existence is that when we learn the basic motivators of ourselves as humans, we can then create a life that is full of meaning and purpose and a sense of more joy than pain. Basically, we can be happy and fulfilled.
Good points.
Amituofo ☸️☯️☸️
Your doing way too much!
Wonderful to hear Thomas. His new book is brilliant and I would love to hear him or you talk with Loch Kelly who is quoted in Thomas's book about how to experience pure consciousness.
I remember exactly when I understood the concept of death. I was nine and sat in the bathtub sobbing. What was even more upsetting was that my parents didn't seem to understand the severity of this problem.
Ya what!😂
The only thing that undergoes death is the false self, the persona, the ego. Your true Self is immortal, was never born and can never die but is eternal and unchanging. Peace.
I remember, I think my hamster had just died and I just assumed I needed to get him warm so I put a stuffed animal over his corpse (think my mother thought I was odd), and later that night I was in bed and was staring into the darkness and realized I would soon be in the same position in a coffin ... Think I was roughly 6-7 but I wasn't sad, just was realizing it.
He is speaking of what the Buddha, Krishna, Loa Tzu and many other sages and saints throughout history have known. Amituofo ☸️☯️☸️
Vedanta
This a high quality rehab content. More views for this.
Im happy you asked him about what makes life beautiful. Some of his acolytes seem to desperately claim otherwise ( I do like Metzinger)
Acolytes? So if we don't agree that life is beautiful we're acolytes?
How about a rational argument maybe?
The most invariant aspect of Experience is awareness of Awareness.
In fact ...it's the only Truth.
And it exists outside of Time/Space/Ego.
The professor begged the question more than 5 tomes. So, basically, ZERO argument for the non-existence of self.
The Buddha explains this most eloquently. ☸️☯️☸️
The ontological self is the subjective cosmos inferring its hierarchical domain within the objective cosmos.
Maybe so, but here my challenge for you - learn the type of inquiry done in Buddhism and some other eastern traditions (See either of the two books by Christiane Michelberger, the Key to Awakening and How to See Through Self) and diligently and persistently do this inquiry. If you do this honestly, with an open mind, you will eventually see it for yourself quite clearly. It will not require anyone else to explain or prove it. Metzinger only gets it intellectually. To understand this deeply, in an intuitive way is altogether different. Until you've done this for yourself, you can't say with honesty, that self exists or doesn't.
@@augustusbetucius2931 been there, done that. At a very young age. I did not need a book or a mentor.
You both need to study Vedanta and understand the difference between the real self (atma) and the egoic sense of 'I ness' (ahamkara). It explains things far more lucidly than anything you both say here.
I agree but I prefer Buddhism or Taoism. Amituofo ☸️☯️☸️
THEIR INTELLIGENCE HAS TURNED AGAINST THEM. Now only GOD can save them. Hare krishna 🙏
@@monporoshneog4725 Hare Krishna 🙏📿
@@noself7889why ? both developed from vedanta.
Big difference between the I maker (ahamkara) and atma … ❤ OmTatSat 😊
The reason the illusion of the self (a seemingly independent, willful entity) is useful to us is to have motivation. Humans retain only a few instincts. We gain flexibility in our response to environment and circumstances by being able to edit the type of triggers for our reactions. But with so few innately assigned triggers, we would have no reason to act or edit the triggers.
What about that it is necessary for me to think of you as an agent or a self who is interacting with me in positive or negative ways. If I didn't think of myself as an agent or self, could I respond and plan how to interact with you? To be an agent or a self means to have needs and goals, such as survival. I WANT to get what I need. So the self is a by product of our need. No need, no self.
I believe there are conditions under which people starve themselves, for instance.
@@johnstewart7025 The problem is that the development of that individual (who needs individuality to create a strategy to defend himself or attack his fellow creatures) occurs simultaneously with that of his friend/enemy. The need to have a tool cannot be prior to the problem it solves. It cannot be its cause.
People do not react to threats to their survival according to a rational analysis.
All living creatures have needs. "Wanting" is the result of certain neurochemicals and its production does not depend on the illusion of individuality.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd yes, but isn't it just a place holder for a bunch of desires?
@@johnstewart7025 In my opinion, the "I" is an illusion in the sense that there is nothing that corresponds to that supposed entity. It is a misconceptualization that is very useful.
The activity of the mind that we interpret as "I" is the representation of our inner and outer environment. That defines a POV that, incorrectly, we intuit corresponds to an individual entity. An implicit entity.
A robot can have flexibility in responses to the environment.
Best interview with the best guy I've seen 👏👏
The self may not be fundamentally real but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist as an emergent phenomenon. It depends on the way you look at it. Most if not all things in the macroscopic world aren't fundamentally real.
I would love to hear Thomas Metzinger and Bernardo Kastrup talking about consciousness in the same room …..
I'll look into Bernardo Kastrup. Cheers.
@@EscapedSapiens Most definitely do! Kastrup is fascinating.
I agree with this. This can be known through meditation and spiritual practice. The interesting thing is that there is something real, something of a universal self that is even more personal than the egoic self. Amituofo ☸️☯️☸️
... And there is the direct path
my question exactly....when i get to where i was driving to, I always wonder why i need to be aware of the driving which I wasn't because i was so deep in thought.
Thank you great interview very informative, consciousness the ultimate reality, we are all one consciousness looking at itself through different avatars, reality is an illusion.
Like a dream the whole thing is a mental event.
you need to define mental
because when I see that word to me it means LEFT PFC delusion as most humans have no idea what the other 6 brains do
Is the self not a substance or whatever that can metaphysically hold itself in existence all by itself? Well, here's a thought experiment to prove that it might be. I might not have existed right now but someone else exactly like me could have existed in my place. The difference is metaphysical, nothing to do with anything inside this world, and if this distinction is possible then whatever it is is the self, the kind of self Metzinger says himself and 90% of philosophers don't believe in. The self only needs to exist in the now. Stability over time does not need to exist for it to be real. Then we are left with something that is very hard to deny because if you do then you must believe that anyone exactly like me would be metaphysically forced to be me, and that's even weirder.
Perhaps Metzinger is projecting his own Death anxiety regarding not quite trusting others that say they no longer have it.
Awareness is immortal...but even the word immortal is a Time/Space dependant implication.
Yes
It's so funny how Thomas laughs after saying the most dreadful things. It's borderline villainous.
Thats probably because he does not identify his self with the things and others do. Very good observer as we all are only our tools and body are very limited in observing
Gratitude 🙏
Very good! Thank you…
2:54 omg I’m already regretting this.
If there is no self, there is nothing that can form that self illusion.
No such thing as nothing, nothing and something are the same.
@@a13xdunlop You seem to be using "nothing" in a different way than I am. However, the claim that "nothing" and "something" are the same is a contradiction.
I agree and feel the most invariant part of the self is the child that feels awe in perceiving the world. As long as it lives in you even if you're old or disabled this is the one that wants to live.
No matter which part of you it is. You in first person are aware of it, you observe it, see it. So how can you be illusion yourself?
Great discussion. A question I have is how does the human self model compare to chimps and bonobos?
Great guest.
To go with it. Contiousness exists in the recent past. A story or narrative from the inputs. Rea tion times, and mental tasks time FMRI. The brain is not just good at patern recognition, but more. Like predictive modeling and analysis and reasoning. Feedback loops in the brain and from surounding environment inputs.
43:03 Hagels pit of despair.
Having a selfmodell doesn't necessarily mean that there is an experience of what it is like to be a self.
Metzinger is so enjoyably smart but seems very influenced by the materialistic paradigm... would be great to connect him with Bernardo Kastrup.
Christof Koch has recently come to the conclusion that death might not be final after going on some crazy Ayahuasca journeys in South America. A dialogue with Dr Metzger and Dr Koch will be interesting 🤔
I'll look into Dr Koch. Thanks for the suggestion.
I got an idea when seeing the title of this video! Even if there is a self, did it create itself? Not according to ordinary logic at least. The only real personal self I see is the unique point of experience each person has. That's real! But a point is not something in itself, it cannot do anything. So, yes definitely, the idea of self as separate entity is an illusion as I see it.
Language !! "Point" ? Model ? Symantic ?
The Self is not an illusion the idea we have about the Self is an illusion..
That is,
we take the body and the mind and the ego as the Self while they are only vehicles.of expression.
Even Watts couldn't have said it better
if the self is an illusion, who is it that experiences this illusion?
No one.😊
@@a13xdunlop why do we talk about it then?
There are different ways of using illusion.
Way 1: "The appearance is mismatched to the reality, where the appearance and reality both exist but them matching isn't actually the case."
Way 2: "The appearance doesn't really exist in reality."
Given that, Metzinger would probably argue that the conscious brain produces a self model of itself which is mismatched to the much more complex dynamical reality of the present brain function. This mismatched self-model appearance gives the conscious organism MASSIVE savings in processing time and calories to more quickly react to changes in it's environment. In other words, the experience is actually the present brain function working in conjunction with a series of concealment functions which hide from the present brain function where it exists in physical reality and how it is operating to decrease processing time and caloric consumption in grasping it's own reality. This present brain function working with concealment functions creates the first person appearance.
In other words, it is illusionism as misinterpretations through simplifications. These simplified misinterpretations are worth the decrease in accuracy and precision over the reality of present brain functions given the decrease in processing time and caloric consumption in grasping those misinterpreted simplifications to more quickly respond to changes within the environment.
LOL, stop paying your bills and see how long it takes to realize you are indeed by...your...self. Reality has a rude way of reminding you that discussing philosophical points and actually applying them to life in a meaningful way are two very different things.
What you say is true, however, perhaps he means that you do not exist apart from your body. In other words, no soul in a religious sense. But, then that is a matter of faith, not science or philosophy.
O@@johnstewart7025
The “self” is an adaptation to living in a very individualized world. Humans are hardwired for collectivism though, which is why there is so much suffering in our current reality. Basically, we must live in opposition to our nature, like caged animals.
@@katieandnick4113 Loneliness can be defined as one who is detached from their self. Which is why you can be in a room full of people and still feel alone.
Collectivism in my opinion is often misunderstood and overrated and when it has been forced upon people, it can have devastating effects which is why anyone who's done any depth of research into the history of purely socialist or communist systems of government can clearly see the problems associated with their application in any large scale. You can be a communist or a socialist in a capitalist system but you can't be a capitalist in a socialist or communist system. One system allows for freedom and the other does not.
I once read an interesting viewpoint that once mankind stopped migrating with the weather as hunter gatherers and living in tribes, only acquiring what they could carry...once we stopped living in that manner and started farming, we built homes and began to acquire more than we needed... is when we took our first step away from nature. Ever since then, we have created and built more than we needed, took more from nature than we were allowed. In other words, the creation of any type of civilization was going to lead to where we are now.
Unfortunately, this cage was built a long time ago and there is no going back, no matter if it's a collective or an individual based system. There is no putting the genie back in the bottle. Taken even further I'm afraid we're standing at the horizon of the end of humanity as we know it with the introduction of A.I., Now instead of fighting amongst ourselves over what way is the right way to live, we have a new challenge that comes presented as an answer to humanities problems. I wish I felt better about what that outcome is going to look like.
@katieandnick4113 we are caged in an individualistic world? That is an odd image. But I think I see what you mean. I also hear about high rates of loneliness. This is people seeking belonging or collective experience.
I am also reminded of how US founders wanted individual rights, but also personal virtue. Belonging to virtuous organizations or group is a way to promote that quality.
Advaita teaching from Dr Jean Klein was similar to: no- body is..nor has...so tell me who's suffering then..?!?🎉😊🎉
He talks about volitional motor control, but that can not be found. Look for yourself. Try to find the moment of decision, and it's easy to see there isn't one. Any action we take arises all on its own. Try to actually find the moment of decision and you can't. Look carefully, very carefully after having thought about moving your hand. Wait, eventually the hand moves, but why? How? It just happens. Some will say, "Well, because there was a thought to do it" But we frequently act without *any* thought to do so. In that exact moment you moved your hand, how did that happen? As the Buddha explained, everything arises due to causes and conditions. Things arise out of the flow of causes and conditions, including the apparent intention, which doesn't require any will for that intention to arise. It's causes and conditions all the way down.
Please be someone - I presented myself to many teachers.
Until one - took me to him - he knew that I was stuck and needed inner change and the heart - had to be freed - to learn to love. (Raja yoga meditation - India)
My actual intentions also - those be the main issues, methinks.
Been with said teachers for 43 yrs of meditation - good dynamic simple clear and effective.
Hope your title - can be changed - by yourself. Each to his own, not so?
Fare thee well - on life's journey.
I am the greatest!!!!!!
The self does exist, it's linked to the subconscious where 95 % of the decisions are made.
It does this by placing thoughts in the self So you don't own the self but you're it.😊
The subconscious is not the self either. You have to go deeper. The Self is universal and both personal and impersonal ☸️☯️☸️
Right
We all know that there is a finite amount of wealth in the world. Wealth can be created and destroyed.
Is there a finite amount of consciousness in the cosmos or is consciousness infinite?
Consciousness can manifest itself, but can consciousness be destroyed?
If self is a fiction, are multiple selves multiple fictions?
Yes or the illusion of reality viewed from different perspectives.
The joy of CHOICE is your strength as you are eternally learning to be wise in multidimensional multiverse. 🐝kind💥🌸
I suggest joscha bach for a better understanding on this topic
Oh - I've been meaning to invite Joscha on for a while now. Good suggestion.
No.Believe me.The self is transcendent.I can remember having transcendent reactions to the people and circumstances around me when I was as young as four years old.Another person would have reacted differently to these people and circumstances
The ontological self is the subjective cosmos inferring its hierarchical domain within the objective cosmos
Let's ask if plants have consciousness?
I wish he'd actually addressed the question you asked on free will, rather than just going off on some random rant.
Your own subjective experience is proof of free will. Modern science is trying to deny the existence of free will but personal experience destroys this view of no free will. Free will is not absolute and is higher in people who have a higher level of consciousness.
Free will, unlikely, free wont, a possibility.
@@a13xdunlop No.
The self is a complex within a much greater or whole consciousness - the latter is what CG Jung termed the 'Self' capitalized with the lower case self being synonymous with the ego - that develops as a result of our differentiating ourselves from our experiences, emotions, identifications, which allows us to adapt and relate to ourselves, others, and the world in new ways. It's a process of conscious maturation and what Jung called individuation.
Humans cannot individuate. That is a myth. At best, we can become less fearful of ourselves, and by extension, of everyone else. But when that happens, we will cease to be able to function in a society built upon fear and hatred, so I guess it’s a no win.
Please study - Bruce Lipton thanks.
I am no one being One.
At one with nothing ☸️☯️☸️
Because wherever you go that's where you are. You might be making up what your self actually is. But with your brain your body is included. You believe this is either part of you or part of something else. It appears it being part of you won out for most people.
Have you heard of Tony Parsons ?who wrote a book called the open secret...Also shares there is nobody ...comes under the term non duality...everything is oneness
Parsons is neo non duality, he no longer accepts consciousness as being ultimate reality, he views it as also part of the illusion.
Imagine an ant in the hall of the great king opining and dining on crumbs. That is every one here. To make this idea of self tangible and palpable, i like what Mike tyson said, ' everyone has an idea in the ring until they get a fist in their face. That is also reality. The shock of it shocking one back to their senses. Most dont have time for metaphysical minutiae which will rationalise and speculate and separate interdisciplinary systems and functions. But never for long divorced from their body, as their mouth conveys it here.
The no self is an illusion allso 😅forget the dum word illusion, it doesn't serve wizedom 😮soul is wizer 😮or the experiencer that is you now reading this 😮its a chooser 😮it is you 😮and it is bound to a role and skin 😮its you the eternal role play gamer 😅you choose your selves to play in eternally 😅the purpose of life is enjoyment òf endless levels and frames 😅you are eternal beings 😅self can never be erased 😮only changed 😅one day you will realise this😮you have eternity to work it out 😅so relax and enjoy your gaming 😅😅😅
That was cool 😎
0:16 0:19
“We are yet not there” No Shit Sherlock.
All thoughts and sensations arise and pass. There must be an unchanging frame of reference upon which all experience arise and pass.
This unchanging Awareness is the Self.
It is a special case of insanity indeed, to deny one's own existence, which is what Thomas is trying to do.
It doesn't work Thomas, no matter what narrative you conjure up
He explains at the start that self is a misrepresentation. Existence isn’t a self, nowhere does he deny existence. Self gives rise to other, there is no other to reality. You exist, he isn’t saying you don’t exist, it’s just the “you” is a misrepresentation, what you think about reality is nothing but an interpretation and the painting you create will never be the landscape itself. Your “self” is no different than Harry Potter, it’s an image built on ideas.
@ProjectMoff That's where he's wrong. Existence is the Self. If there is a singular __________ that constitutes reality, and you exist, that ________ must be you.
There is a singular observer, and that singularity is Self. These people saying there is no Self are using poor word choices. There is no separately existing individual self, that is true. But you most certainly exist. That which is looking through these eyes is that which is looking through those eyes
@@Nonconceptuality The Self of the singular observer is also an illusion. It doesn't exist as a Self. It's just existence. It's awareness, true, but there is nothing that exists as a self. Brahman/God/Whatever is no more real than a person. The self God experiences himself as being, is just another illusion. It doesn't exist. There is no Self. Whatever the absolute truth of reality actually is, is impossible to know. The sense of a self, or the knowing of it, will always be an object to whatever is sensing or knowing it. The "I am" is the original illusion. It doesn't matter if it is God knowing it or a person. Maybe, it's all coming down to semantics, or poor word choices. At this level in a discussion on reality it becomes almost impossible to explain what one is trying to say. Consciousness - meaning with knowledge (con scire) is also an illusion. It appears/happens when awareness 'becomes' aware of awareness, which is cannot but do. I guess it can be called meta-awareness - which is the mirror image of awareness. But the image in a mirror isn't the image. It just looks like it. That's the 'I am'. That's the Self. The rest follows from it 🙂 -or something like that.
@themadnorseman Thomas is confused. His model immediately collapses into nihilism.
My Fundamental Model of Reality clears all of this up. Everyone is attempting to describe reality focusing only on the appearances. Reality plus the illusion is expressed by my triune 'other-of' model. It's SUPERPOSITION.
And my model is the only one that recognizes this
@@Nonconceptualitynihilism is becoming Europes fastest growing religion
The Buddha said it much better
Thomas Metzinger should work with David Benatar.
Illusion is not having the right knowledge of something. Yet you exist....
I am thinking that what we imagine to be our self is mainly a product of our wanting and needing and desiring. We need to be able to imagine what "I" will do and what "you" will do. Besides that, there is no self.
Under certain circumstances, people have starved themselves to death.
And people who suffer deep depression say they feel as though their "self" is already dead. Committing suicide is just "taking out the trash."
@@johnstewart7025 no matter what you see you are before that. Your wishes, intentions etc come after that. How can you be something circumstantial if you exist before that circumstantion. Have you thought about that that you exist before all that shuff as an observer off all of that? You are aware of wish to imagine. No matter how you turn if, there is always you who does it, isn't it?
@@tomazflegar Isn't the fundamental question about a soul which is a self that is separate from our body, brain etc.?
@@johnstewart7025 soul is soul. Are you aware of it? If you are, it is object self percives
@@tomazflegar I am aware of physical and mental phenomenon. I haven't identified a soul.
Consciousness is the most vicious poison ever, nothingness was perfection...
In this eternal flawless nothingness only tiny flaw is universe.
That old cliche. Life might be tolerable or worth continuing. Worth living? Wrong question. Worth starting? No
Bs Self îs something that grow but from God we shall receve a perfect self, wich can endure ethernal existence, a New name, name mins self. Apocalips, White peble with name on IT talk about that.
Hey your videos on life are absolutely false...
Hi Drsaikiranc. Let me know how and I can try to improve. Thanks for listening.
Booooooringggggg
NOT WELL EXPLAINED! BEST TO INTERVIEW PEOPLE TO WHOM HAVE PERMANENTLY LOST THIER SELF!!
Who would you recommend ?
Not possible, there is no permanently losing the self, there is no one and nothing to lose.