There is no "I" in "You"

[quip]

What constitutes the self.



Does the transfer of A's memories/experience to B render A non-existent?  If so, what's transferred to B?

... umm just A's memories and experiences are transferred to B's body. You wrote that yourself, why are you asking me?

And did you not read anything I wrote so far?

'self' is the collective summation of all your memories, experiences and all of the factors creating and effecting them including physical attributes.

If so, then how does A disappear?

[Aoi Magi]

... umm just A's memories and experiences are transferred to B's body. You wrote that yourself, why are you asking me?
[


And did you not read anything I wrote so far?

'self' is the collective summation of all your memories, experiences and all of the factors creating and effecting them including physical attributes.

Then were did A go?

Nowhere, A simply doesn't exist when C has formed

---

If so, then how does A disappear?

By merging with B

[Edwardo Piet]

The point is A cannot have the same identity as C, C is created because when A is implanted into B's body A's identity is thereby changed, hence C.

[quip]

And did you not read anything I wrote so far?

'self' is the collective summation of all your memories, experiences and all of the factors creating and effecting them including physical attributes.

Then were did A go?

Nowhere, A simply doesn't exist when C has formed
[/quote]

Though A still identifies as A in B's body. You still haven't determined why or how A must identify as C ..or what that even entails.

[Aoi Magi]

Then were did A go?

Nowhere, A simply doesn't exist when C has formed

Though A still identifies as A in B's body. You still haven't determined why or how A must identify as C ..or what that even entails.

A is not identifying as A in B's body. C is identifying as A, and I've already stated self-identity is a bit pointless.

[quip]

The point is A cannot have the same identity as C, C is created because when A is implanted into B's body A's identity is thereby changed, hence C.

Thus, "self" is a continuum not the immutable concept we fool ourselves into presuming. 

Interesting.

---

Though A still identifies as A in B's body. You still haven't determined why or how A must identify as C ..or what that even entails.

A is not identifying as A in B's body. C is identifying as A, and I've already stated self-identity is a bit pointless.

Pointless? Do you consider your own identity pointless?

[Edwardo Piet]

The self is indivisible and ultimately nowhere to be 'found'. We are made up of multiple drafts, competing thoughts and bundles of experience competing and vying, the drafts/bundles/thoughts that are winning like to think of themselves as us and take credit for all of us.

There is no localized self, no focal point, no Cartesian theatre. Just conscious egotistical bundles that are rather self-important and like to take credit for the whole person.

Thoughts like to pop up and claim to be the thinker!

[The Grand Nudger]

I appreciate, as I'm sure we all do, Quip..that you came here to enlighten we suffering denizens of AF......and "put a reasonable doubt into the atheist perspective"...whatever you think that is.  

However, I fear that such a goal is at cross purposes to your stated method, in that proposing a koan, you should be causing us to -doubt- the efficacy of reason, at which point the value of a reasonable doubt is significantly reduced.  Further, your inability, up to this point, to actually -present- comments or questions which might lead us to doubt reason, except insomuch as we might doubt that you possess any, makes me suspect that the time you spent learning whatever you think passes as buddhism might have been better spent doing something else, like sitting on your hands.  

Perhaps you're a poor communicator, in a hellish  kassandra scenario whereby you have things of great importance to convey, but for whatever reason, you cannot properly impress upon others what those things are, or convince them that they are important....but seeing as your stated aim is to reduce confidence in reason, it's difficult to see how you intend to convince anyone of anything.  If we accepted the inadequecy of reason, what will you use, then, to bring us round? Will you be repeating your claims or your questions until you get a response that you find suitable for further prevarication...and then claim that all previous answers were thusly inadequate or incorrect?

To what end, we might ask ourselves, would a person wish to create such a hole in cognition?  "Enlightenment", proclaims buddhism.  Convenient, I think,  that "enlightenment" seems to require irrationality, demands that we abandon reason which would rail against it's inanities.   Convenient, that "enlightenment" seems to be interchangeable with the dogma of the buddhist who sits before us claiming to have none. Unfortunate, in that "enlightenment" doesn't seem to be very enlightening.

[Edwardo Piet]

Quip, do you believe in any gods or are you an atheist Buddhist?

[quip]

Quip, do you believe in any gods or are you an atheist Buddhist?

Atheist