RE: What is Self ?
June 27, 2014 at 7:11 pm
(This post was last modified: June 27, 2014 at 7:14 pm by ManMachine.)
(June 27, 2014 at 2:58 pm)Muslim Atheism Wrote: I don't know. . .but I guess maybe it looks like this . .
Desire
(animal minds?)
↓
Mind
(conscious and subconscious)
↓
vibration - - - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - - - - - - - - - vibration
↓
Heart
↓
Soul
maybe there are other theories etc. . . .
It is unlikely that 'self' arrived fully formed in the human mind. It is also possible that what we perceive as a single experience of 'self' is a multi-layered construct. I personally find Damasio's Theory of consciousness rather compelling and it gives us a rudimentary map of how 'self' might be constructed.
Essentially (and I'm not going to do this the justice it deserves in this post, so this is a bit of a cut n' paste job) Damasio proposes three layers to 'self' each one using its lower form to build upon.
Protoself - the most basic representation of 'self', as Damasio puts it, '... a coherent collection of neural patterns, which map moment-by-moment the state of the physical structure of the organism"
Core Consciousness - When the organism becomes aware of the feeling that its bodily state (Protoself) is being affected by its experiences, or response to emotion, Core Consciousness is born.
and finally
Extended Consciousness - When consciousness moves beyond the here and now, Damasio’s third and final layer emerges as Extended Consciousness.
You can read about it here...
Damasio's Theory of Consciousness - Wiki
I'm not suggesting this is the final and only answer but it give us an insight, or at least a very basic road map, into how self (or consciousness) evolved and is structured.
Sadly the word 'vibration' has become ubiquitous in so called 'new-age' philosophy where there is a gap in real world explanations for metaphysical concepts. It's meaningless, people need to stop using it.
MM
"The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions" - Leonardo da Vinci
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
"I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously." - Douglas Adams (and I echo the sentiment)
