Does a "True Self" Exist?

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Originally, I was going to make an “One Year as an Atheist” thread, and recount the things that stayed the same, and the things that changed in my life. As I was writing, I perceived that the only original subject in there, was me discovering a new side of myself, that I would deem, more of my ‘true self’. I was raised catholic and adopted many conservative positions on political and religious issues. However, there were a few positions, that I never adopted, even at a young age, things like the classic opposition to gay marriage (which I believe was my potential ‘true self’, resisting these indoctrinations). As I became older, I became a little more culturally liberal on my own, then non-religious, then a little over a year ago, an atheist. As I lost these indoctrinated positions, I actually began looking at the world for what it really was, and I no longer saw some spiritual essence in everything I laid my eyes upon. I listened to both sides of all of the issues that I could, and made up my own mind. It dawned on me, that I had possibly become more of my ‘true self’. I was comprised of my true beliefs, and use of my true reasoning faculties, to observe the world for the first time. I truly believe that in order to become a version of your ‘true self’, one must become an atheist. No matter how much of a realist you think you are, if you believe a god intervenes in the world and that you have a personal relationship with this entity, you cannot see things the way they really are, in my opinion.

One short, silly example of a suppressed aspect of my true self is that, I thought designs of skulls were cool, but suppressed my true desires to wear clothing with skulls on them, because this idea was implanted into my head that I shouldn’t like those designs, because they are demonic by nature. Now, I feel I am who I am. I, then thought how much further can I take this? If, I was raised in a different time, by different parents, in a different environment, with a different government, would I be a different person? One may argue, that this would truly not be me, and I would respect that stance. Although, I feel, that in some ways that I would be different. To me, in many ways, we are products of our environment, but of course some people can fight against this, like what Ayaan Hirsi Ali did, but many submit to such conditions. If, theoretically, I was raised on a different planet, I may be dissimilar to my ‘true self’ on earth. If, I was raised in times of slavery in the U.S., even as an atheist, I’m not sure if I’d think that slavery was wrong. I’d like to think that I’d be repulsed by the thought of slavery, but I don’t know for sure. Of course, with my morals, (compassion being part of those) I can’t imagine seeing someone being abused, and treated like property, and not think something was highly immoral with that. If, I was raised in a cannibalistic society, with no outside contact, would my true self be a cannibal? After deciding that the best way to be a version of the ‘true self’, would be an atheist, and that it would also depend on the extent of your understanding of your environment as a whole, I decided to look up material on the true self, and I only came up with this video (5 min.):

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMYdKz4xxMc

---

The basic premise that is argued is: the true self is either your beliefs and your critical thinking OR your emotions and desires. Going by this disputation, I defend that within a particular environment, while being exposed to as much information as possible about your environment, that your beliefs and critical thinking skills consist of your true self, as opposed to your emotions and desires. I argue that, firmly establishing a moral compass, using observation and your emotions, one can use their emotions to formulate their beliefs. I think that it is these beliefs, only when put into action, become your true self, when applying the argument made by the video. The problem for me, is the arguments that I’ve made earlier, show that we can change, based upon events that take place. And, there may be events that take place in the future, that change my beliefs on a matter. It is for this reason, that I { truly } believe that a true self cannot completely exist. Do you think there can be a true self, and what do you think that it is? Or, can it only exist in a particular scenario? Or, is the true self, merely an illusion? Can a true self change or does it have to be fixed?

Some of you may ask to define a true self, and rightfully so, but I think there are going to be many different opinions on that matter. You may want to use the video or comment on my thoughts. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond.

[robvalue]

Thanks for sharing your story

It's a very interesting question. I've often wondered what I would be like if I was raised in another country, under different values. It seems to me that some people are more easily led, and some tend to question things. When I compare myself to my parents, I see so little in common that I'm amazed I was raised by them, let alone a genetic product of them. So I feel I would have come to vaguely similar conclusions if I was raised differently, but I can't possibly know that for sure. Ruthless indoctrination can probably break anybody.

I would have to conclude that our "real selves" is our DNA. Everything on top of that is the result of environment and experience, I would say.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

Thanks for sharing your story

It's a very interesting question. I've often wondered what I would be like if I was raised in another country, under different values. It seems to me that some people are more easily led, and some tend to question things. When I compare myself to my parents, I see so little in common that I'm amazed I was raised by them, let alone a genetic product of them. So I feel I would have come to vaguely similar conclusions if I was raised differently, but I can't possibly know that for sure. Ruthless indoctrination can probably break anybody.

I would have to conclude that our "real selves" is our DNA. Everything on top of that is the result of environment and experience, I would say.

It’s interesting to think of it from that perspective. I know if we would take that another step further saying our true selves or atoms, quarks, or stardust, then we would practically would be all the same, some folks would have more atoms and some less, and that number would change every day. I’ve heard this argument from theists saying, “If you are only stardust/molecules in motion, then how can you feel love, compassion, etc.?” That drives me nuts, I say, “From a perspective of 500,000x magnification, maybe, but do you see me standing before you, do you see that I’m a person with a beating heart and a brain in my head? I am not just molecules in motion. I have very complex processes happening all over inside my body that allow me to experience this world and interact with you; it has nothing to do with a god.” Of course, they think they win with this argument, but having a brain (along with other complex systems) allows you to feel these emotions.

[robvalue]

For sure, you have to be clear what level of "zoom" you're talking about. People with weak-ass arguments make the mistake of talking about both at once. If we're zooming in, then yeah, we're a bunch of stuff. We're atoms, quarks, quantum thingies, whatever. But to then draw conclusions about the "zoomed out" world, talking in very different base terms, from observations at the micro level is just stupid.

Our DNA has a massive effect on every aspect of us at the zoomed out level, and I see it as the nearest thing to our essence as you can get. How it's going to get shaped exactly is going to depend on every aspect of the environment, but you are still uniquely "you" whatever would have happened.

What we're really talking about when we discuss the zoomed out is emergent properties such as consciousness. This is so poorly understood that it's hard to say much about it at all, except that it seems to somehow end up as something more than the sum of its parts. Scientifically I find this statement hard to believe; I think it's all a matter of perspective, and ours is fixed in such a way as to make it very difficult to examine. But it "seems" real, and that's about as real as anything gets

[Cato]

I think the dichotomy is false rendering the question somewhat meaningless. It's another nature vs. nurture argument. My opinion, I think shared by many, is that we are measures of both each contributing to varying degrees that change depending on the situation or idea considered. I don't have a problem in using the concept of values in an attempt to perhaps seek out which one might be dominant in any given context, but I think identifying one or the other as the 'true' self is convoluted and misleading.

I believe that my experiences in life play a significant role in defining who I am if I define self as simply a collection of my mental states and have no problem concluding that had I had different experiences I could very well be different in many ways. The problem with this definition of self is that if we compare our collection of mental states now to the collection of mental states when we are five we get two very different selves. It's intuitively absurd. That five year old was me too, I've clearly just added more experiences/mental states to the collection.

As touched on before, the content of the mental states is a combination of nature and nurture. I think a more accurate description of self would also include 'that which has privileged access to the mental states'. That stays consistent over time for any of us while our mental states continue to change.

[The Inquisition]

Thanks for sharing your story

It's a very interesting question. I've often wondered what I would be like if I was raised in another country, under different values. It seems to me that some people are more easily led, and some tend to question things. When I compare myself to my parents, I see so little in common that I'm amazed I was raised by them, let alone a genetic product of them. So I feel I would have come to vaguely similar conclusions if I was raised differently, but I can't possibly know that for sure. Ruthless indoctrination can probably break anybody.

I would have to conclude that our "real selves" is our DNA. Everything on top of that is the result of environment and experience, I would say.

It’s interesting to think of it from that perspective. I know if we would take that another step further saying our true selves or atoms, quarks, or stardust, then we would practically would be all the same, some folks would have more atoms and some less, and that number would change every day. I’ve heard this argument from theists saying, “If you are only stardust/molecules in motion, then how can you feel love, compassion, etc.?” That drives me nuts, I say, “From a perspective of 500,000x magnification, maybe, but do you see me standing before you, do you see that I’m a person with a beating heart and a brain in my head? I am not just molecules in motion. I have very complex processes happening all over inside my body that allow me to experience this world and interact with you; it has nothing to do with a god.” Of course, they think they win with this argument, but having a brain (along with other complex systems) allows you to feel these emotions.

My smart-ass side would ask a believer that makes assertions about the supernatural would be to say- can you give me the exact magnification where I will see angels flying around guiding my cells?

As is so often the case, if someone doesn't seek a scientific understanding of what we are, they will default to superstition.

I'm ok with being "a bunch of atoms". What an amazing and complex machine we humans are and what an amazing example we are of a universe that has evolved the ability to conceptualize itself using minds.

[bennyboy]

Sure there's a self. It's true that humans seem to be mostly the same-- if you melted me down to my constituent parts, I would be (for the most part) the same as you. And if you further broke me down to QM particles, there would be no difference among us except the number of particles.

However, in a person, these parts are brought together in relation to each other, and these relationships among parts are very different. This is a little mystical, at least to me, because new properties (like consciousness) emerge out of collections of relationships so complex that we cannot fathom them as human beings: we must distill them, simplify them to principles, and therefore lose those details-- details like what it's like to experience one's own mind and feelings. We cannot now (and I suspect ever) really explain what it is about the brain, for example, that allows matter to begin experiencing qualia.

For example, it may be that we soon make an artificial intelligence that can pass, at least online, as a human 100% of the time: it will learn, interact, develop preferences, exhibit emotional behaviors, etc. But, and this is the catch, while the mechanism of that AI (various memory and CPU chips, internet cable, software programmed in a very deliberate way) can be completely known, nobody will know exactly what complex relationships evolve as the AI evolves and becomes a "person." And by distilling that information down to a human-comprehensible form, I'm pretty sure the picture will be lost.

So I don't think we're a "bunch of atoms," any more than a digital picture is just a bunch of electrical impulses in a computer. There is some underyling information which piggybacks on the material structures, and that is the real essence of things. So Windows is real, and while it requires SOME mechanism, it is not that mechanism. The real Windows is in the information, the meaning (not its ability to exist though) transcends that mechanism.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I may be responding to robvalue and bennyboy here, but, if we consider ourselves only as particles, or just specifically, DNA, then there is no longer a self, because there is no consciousness (going by the definition of self, that includes being a human). Although, after reading some material on quantum mechanics, there seems to be at least some sort of consciousness, or maybe better worded as, an ‘environmental reflex’ with particles that don’t actually seem to have the capabilities of awareness, at least, not at our capacity. In my opinion, our genetics, don’t necessarily make up who we are (they do, and they don’t). They make up everything physical about us on a ‘macro’ scale, but not what we truly become, when exposed to our world. I believe that we are a slave to our DNA in a way, because our DNA, at least partially, predisposes us to how we will view the world, but I don't feel that, this alone, will make us who we truly are. I like the way Cato worded his response, and I’d have to agree that I am the same self as I was at 5 years of age, but we can change when we come in contact with new stimuli in our own reality.

[bennyboy]

I may be responding to robvalue and bennyboy here.

No, I don't think so. I'm arguing that there is an underlying "essence" to things that transcends (or at least cannot be known not to transcend) whatever material structures it piggybacks on.

[Salacious B. Crumb]

I may be responding to robvalue and bennyboy here.

No, I don't think so.  I'm arguing that there is an underlying "essence" to things that transcends (or at least cannot be known not to transcend) whatever material structures it piggybacks on.

My apologies, I understood that you were talking about that. I just wasn’t sure if I was missing an even deeper layer to that example.

It was a good example to demonstrate that. Thanks