By
dissecting the self, I very much mean analyzing institutions, really the environment in general, and how that environment creates the individuals that we are as it interacts with our genetic
structures. What we are looking at there are structures of identity and behavior.
The self is also analyzed in the phenomenological sense,
in the entity that we postulated at the center of recurring thoughts,
at the center of our head, as that which streams the flow of
perceptions. I follow people like Thomas Metzinger (The Ego Tunnel)
and Bruce Hood (The Self Illusion) among many other cognitive scientists
and philosophers (etc.) who focus on the idea that the concept of
self that we naively postulated in the past does not match with our present best understanding. Some of what we
engulfed in the sense of self was posited there because of
transparent structures of brain to mind. We could say something like
the little voice that runs through your head, your immediate
experiencing of world and body and thoughts, encouraged us to
postulate an entity, the self, that is no longer holding up under the
closer inspection of neuroscience. Before the arising of cognitive
science, broadly speaking, there were thoughtful criticizers from
philosophy, psychology, and Buddhism.
There
is often wrangling around the term illusion, which should often just
be ignored in cases where conversations break down into such. There
are a few good things to keep in mind. When people say the self does
not exist or that it is an illusion, they often are arguing against
its conceptualization as humans have created it from various
experiences. There is usually reference to some continuous, seamless,
unified and unitary entity that we postulate as who we are. As we dig deeper into the brain we are finding something that is different than many of those things. It makes some
sense to me that we would call our original postulations illusions, as they were arrived at out of naive reflections on our experiences. There are other senses of
self, of what is usually conceptualized as what it means to be a
self, that are not illusions. We are brains and bodies, and if by
self we just mean that generally persistent entity encompassing such, including much of
the persistent brain/mind structure, then that meaning
of self is not an illusion.
One
of the main themes around this subject is that our mental thoughts
were not structured to be faithful analyzers of what those mental
thoughts are, and thus eventually what human beings postulated as the
concept of self naturally consumes misleading information. On a
similar structure, we wan look at the phenomenology of making a choice, of having
contemplations and desires running through our head as we actively
select among various options, without having any access to the
working of the brain and much of the other constraining and
thought-organizing factors. That structure all means that we experience an
unconstrained, unlimited control of our choices from the first person
perspective. I think it is one of the reasons why compatibilism will
always be empty. It makes far more sense that our concept of free
will is wrapped up in this constant experience of choice making, and that this experience has a very misleading or even self-unanalyzable
phenomenological aspect. As to the general problem, R. Scott Bakker
at the Three Pound Brain gives good arguments to these themes of
misleading phenomenology, and he even goes further to claim that such
a gap is unbridgeable. We are doomed to bad theories in some ways. I
am not that pessimistic. I think we will eventually get a grasp on
consciousness and these other mental phenomena.
I advocate, or playfully enjoy, cleaning up language and concepts. There are always equally adequate ways of getting across the same concept, and making those changes allows us to control connotation as we try to get to what is important. So, with that, I am happy to discard the self and free will to the dust bin. What's important is trying to figure out what kind of creatures that we are, what our experiences consist in, and in what kind of selves and society we wish to create.
No comments:
Post a Comment