Does a "True Self" Exist?

[Whateverist]

You're free to think that of course.  

Or maybe not?  

[Salacious B. Crumb]

You're free to think that of course.  

Or maybe not?  

[Whateverist]

Seriously though, I enjoyed the video.

[brewer]

Man, you're all such deep thinkers. My input will be simple. Affecting self (true or not) in ascending order: genetics, environment, society.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Seriously though, I enjoyed the video.

Glad to hear it. Me too.

[chasbanner]

Seriously though, I would have to answer no for the 'privileged access' reason I gave in post #5. I think there is an argument for your conclusion, but only at the instant the clone is created. From there on it is unavoidable that experiences diverge and that there are two unique selves regardless of their similarities.

Does that mean that every "true self" lasts only an instant?

[Cato]

Seriously though, I would have to answer no for the 'privileged access' reason I gave in post #5. I think there is an argument for your conclusion, but only at the instant the clone is created. From there on it is unavoidable that experiences diverge and that there are two unique selves regardless of their similarities.

Does that mean that every "true self" lasts only an instant?

Of course not, what you quoted was in answer to the claim that a clone would be identical to the original self. They are the same the instant the clone is created, but as soon as the clone starts accessing its mind states there is necessarily another self.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think the question sets up a dichotomy that may not exist.  What would a false self be, for example?  When is something not what it is, whatever that may be?  On what grounds do we parcel up some portion of a thing, calling it true self and lay the rest aside as "other"?  I can think of extreme outliers, dissociative disorders...but even there, there doesn't seem to be a false self, only an intentional construct, an extension of the true self manufactured to further it's goals.  I think that all of the difficulty is bound up in expectations of the "true" bit, not the "self" bit.  We think of true things as unchanging, without guile perhaps, we think of them as...true.  Why -would- a human self be unchanging, why would it be anything less than duplicitous and calculating? Are we keeping in mind the job the self has..... when we start to set the borders on what constitutes a true self, as opposed to some other type of self?  I think that when we refer to any "other" type of self we are not actually referring to separate selves, or even separate things or components, but differently valued portions of one thing. Whatever our true selves may be, they must be something that is possible for us, our description must match something that we are capable of (this is the basis of your contention that the true self can;t exist, ofc). My true self for example, can't be a time traveling alien, because I'm not a time traveling alien, I can't do that, or be that. Is unchanging or constant or singular really something that a human being can pull off? Can we do that? If not, then why would our true self have those attributes, why would we set that as the bar, and what could we possibly say about ourselves -beyond- the borders of a contention in which true self is defined as such...what relevance does it have to a human being and whatever self we may claim? Why choose to describe something in a manner it cannot possibly exist as, only to determine that the thing being described must, by virtue of that description, be impossible?

Your "true self" was the one that liked skull t-shirts -and- the one that advised you not to wear them. Your true self is a social self, after all, and it weighs social options and consequences...doesn't it? You know, from experience, that your true self is not as you would like to describe it, as unchanging or constant in the face of multiplicity and divergence. Perhaps this means that your description of a true self is wrong, not that you don't have one, or that a true self can't possibly exist, completely (that's all that can follow from your description and objections, after all)?

/two cents.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I think the question sets up a dichotomy that may not exist.  What would a false self be, for example?  When is something not what it is, whatever that may be?  On what grounds do we parcel up some portion of a thing, calling it true self and lay the rest aside as "other"?  I can think of extreme outliers, dissociative disorders...but even there, there doesn't seem to be a false self, only an intentional construct, an extension of the true self manufactured to further it's goals.  I think that all of the difficulty is bound up in expectations of the "true" bit, not the "self" bit.  We think of true things as unchanging, without guile perhaps, we think of them as...true.  Why -would- a human self be unchanging, why would it be anything less than duplicitous and calculating? Are we keeping in mind the job the self has..... when we start to set the borders on what constitutes a true self, as opposed to some other type of self?  I think that when we refer to any "other" type of self we are not actually referring to separate selves, or even separate things or components, but differently valued portions of one thing.  Whatever our true selves may be, they must be something that is possible for us, our description must match something that we are capable of (this is the basis of your contention that the true self can;t exist, ofc).  My true self for example, can't be a time traveling alien, because I'm not a time traveling alien, I can't do that, or be that.  Is unchanging or constant or singular really something that a human being can pull off?  Can we do that?  If not, then why would our true self have those attributes, why would we set that as the bar, and what could we possibly say about ourselves -beyond- the borders of a contention in which true self is defined as such...what relevance does it have to a human being and whatever self we may claim?  Why choose to describe something in a manner it cannot possibly exist as, only to determine that the thing being described must, by virtue of that description, be impossible?

Your "true self" was the one that liked skull t-shirts -and- the one that advised you not to wear them.  Your true self is a social self, after all, and it weighs social options and consequences...doesn't it? You know, from experience, that your true self is not as you would like to describe it, as unchanging or constant in the face of multiplicity and divergence.   Perhaps this means that your description of a true self is wrong, not that you don't have one, or that a true self can't possibly exist, completely (that's all that can follow from your description and objections, after all)?

/two cents.

I was thinking of this as I was writing my OP. What would be a false self? This is why I was careful to have true self in quotes when necessary, and I would write potential true self, because I don’t think one can exist (not in our perceived reality anyway). I would use potential true self, when asserting what qualities a true self would possess, but at the same time, not believing one could exist in the way that we perceive spacetime on earth. Maybe, with a 5th dimension, as in the movie, Interstellar, we could, but as for our reality goes, I agree…Anyways..

I agree with much of what you’re saying. I agree, that my version of a true self could be wrong, I was throwing thoughts out there for people to comment on, and then, added a concrete definition (via video) that could be remarked upon, whether or not a true self is x or y or neither. Your commentary has made me think that the ‘true self’ is more of an illusion than I had previously thought. In the first two sentences of your last paragraph, you give an example of what would be my true self at a particular instance in time, but, time changes, and we experience something different every day, as we change with time around us. Even if we don’t experience something completely new, that lack of new experience, will amend our frame of reference on certain topics in our environment, hence me, not believing in my own version of what I surmise to be a true self (which I’m beginning to see more and more, is an unchanging self) And, to critically look at my own argument, a false self, would be a changing self, which doesn’t make sense. Nonetheless, I’d have to admit to being a false self with reference to my very own definition. Whoopsies. Unless, I’m wrong again, in my argument.

[chasbanner]

Of course not, what you quoted was in answer to the claim that a clone would be identical to the original self. They are the same the instant the clone is created, but as soon as the clone starts accessing its mind states there is necessarily another self.

Well...
Why is it that a second of new memories forever alters the fundamental being of the clone, while a second of new memories leaves the original the same person it was second ago?