There is no "I" in "You"

[Thumpalumpacus]

Anatta is bullshit.

The self is a composite model which the brain maintains composed of things like our history, body knowledge, goals, and plans.  It is not available to introspection as such and we access it seamlessly through a kind of recall.  It is a dynamic model and thus is constantly changing as new data dictates it change.  We 'are' the model.

I'm of the opinion that much of the problem of trying to pin down the self comes from assuming that it need have an objective existence, either as a thing or a process.  What if the self is just an idea in the mind, an idea that we have no control over, a model of something that the mind creates for us?  

Nick Humphries has a similar idea -- that consciousness is the act on one (or several) part(s) of the brain observing each other in action.

I'm not sure how true it is, but it makes sense to me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Anatta.  The claim is that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in human beings.  Well, agreed.  

The conclusion drawn from this claim, however, what buddhists take this to mean....is that there is no self.  That if ghosts don't exist........self doesn't exist. A complete non-sequitur based upon abject ignorance. Simple mistakes like this might be avoided, if they weren't so quick to discard reason as inadequate.

[Gemini]

Anatta.  The claim is that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in human beings.  Well, agreed.  

The conclusion drawn from this claim, however, what buddhists take this to mean....is that there is no self.  That if ghosts aren't real.........self isn't real.  A complete non-sequitur based upon abject ignorance.  Simple mistakes like this might be avoided, if they weren't so quick to discard reason.

Different Buddhist will have a different understanding of this. I would say Anatta means that self isn't fundamental. In the sense that atoms, however real they are, aren't fundamental, but are composed of other entities. To cash this out, protons, neutrons, and electrons are useful ways of thinking about reality at one level, but they don't exist as particulars inhered by properties (which is a to say, fundamentally complex entities). Likewise, self is a useful way of thinking about certain experiences, but it doesn't exist as a fundamentally complex entity, but as an aggregate of entities, which are categorically removed from concepts of "self."

[The Grand Nudger]

There are probably as many different interpretations of what anatta means as there are individual buddhists.  It's a common trend amongst the religious. The word means, literally, no soul. The doctrine is expounded upon at length and in detail. Not that your interpretation isn't interesting, ofc. Where did you come by it?

[LadyForCamus]

I'd agree with the OP title. There is no "I" in me for that would require me to be inside myself.

Sounds dirty. [emoji13]

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd agree with the OP title. There is no "I" in me for that would require me to be inside myself.

Sounds dirty.  [emoji13]

... go on ....

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's your hypothetical -- why are you asking anyone else to flesh it out?

Lazy thinker spotted.

Not familiar with the Socratic method?

Yeah, matter of fact I am ... but you ain't Socrates, kid.

[Gemini]

There are probably as many different interpretations of what anatta means as there are individual buddhists.  It's a common trend amongst the religious.  The word means, literally, no soul.  The doctrine is expounded upon at length and in detail.  Not that your interpretation isn't interesting, ofc.  Where did you come by it?

From philosophers like Jay Garfield and Graham Priest mostly, I think. Garfield is kinda religious, but they both approach it from a primarily philosophical angle.

[The Grand Nudger]

Syncretists angling for a more rational interpretation of buddhism. That's been the thing to do ever since it was repackaged as a product for a western audience. I doubt that it would have caught on without efforts like those. Personally, I consider such interpretations about as buddhist as applie pie, and it's clearly not the interpretation that our resident lama adheres to.

[Gemini]

Syncretists angling for a more rational interpretation of buddhism.  That's been the trend ever since it was repackaged as a product for a western audience.

I don't think that's true of Priest, in particular. Western philosophy has tended to overlook a great many  Eastern philosophers like Nagarjuna (who is as influential east of the Euphrates as Aristotle is in the west), and they've been advocates for correcting this.


I think it's a useful contribution to metaphysics to challenge armchair-notions like substance theory from a more skeptical tradition.