X-Message-Number: 14302 From: "George Smith" <> References: <> Subject: To process - is that the question? Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2000 12:56:32 -0700 In Message #14293 From: "Scott Badger" he wrote in part on the Subject: To be, that is the question. I wanted to make some interspersed comments on these points. My suggestions here will be couched as absolute statements but please don't take them as such. These are just my views on this issue, subject to change. > "The large volume of empirical research on the self has convinced most > social and behavioral scientists that the self is real, and that no science > of the human experience is complete without accounting for it. Here, at a > general level, are some things we know about the self: The problem here is that we (I fit in your above categories) tend to become all too sloppy in our use of words to define what we are referring to. I prefer to distinguish between the concept of "self" and the persona. The persona is a strictly mental creation. The word comes from the Greek word referring to the mask used by actors in plays. If I substitute the word persona, a bundle of thoughts which, like a mask, is seemingly "worn" by the "self", things seem to become much clearer. For example: > 1. The self is reflexive--it can become the object of its own attention > (from various perspectives)--and this reflexiveness underlies many of the > activities of the self. The persona is reflexive. The thoughts which compose the persona (constantly?) habitually self regulate the persona as a whole. One aspect of the persona is to maintain an ongoing semblance of its own make up. In other words, the "mask" tends to work to retain its "appearance". Rather than carved from wood, it seems to be more like very thick oatmeal once a human being gets past about age 4. > 2. Most of our understanding of the world (e.g., other people, things we > read or see) is filtered through our understanding of self. Most of our understanding of the world is filtered through the persona. Those ideas which conflict with the persona's "image" tend to be rejected or scewed (Fesstinger's Cognitive Dissonance). The persona affects conscious perception directly in this way, and especially interprets events to reinforce the structure of the persona. > 3. Although, from late adolescence onward, the self is stable over time, in > particular situations different aspects of the self move to the fore, > creating the appearance of fluidity. Because the persona is composed of mental elements and because the environment continues to stimulate new mental reactions to new perceptions, the persona only TENDS to remain cohesive as it gradually (and inevitably) is changed. The persona is not a mental "entity" (some THING) but an interconnecting grouping of thoughts, perceptions and memories which actively inter react in accord with mental association patterns and sensory input. > 4. Due to a variety of personal and interpersonal motives, the self on > public display often does not match the self of which we are privately > aware. Those elements of the persona which work in social contexts are not always those not so stimulated. There are potentially an infinite number of subroutines in the persona to access in response to any particular event, mental or physical. > Although these general, widely accepted properties of the self are > important, and the principles and predictions that follow from them are > many, there are some fundamental things we do not know about the human self: > > 1. We do not know where the self resides. Although the self is clearly a > product of activity occurring in the nervous system, no one has yet > identified areas of the brain that are associated with the capacity for > self-relevant thought and emotion. The persona has no location in space as it is not an entity but is an ongoing mental pattern interaction. One particular popular subroutine of the persona is the creation of identity boundaries. That which is "within" these boundaries is labeled "the self" as opposed to anything outside these boundaries. These identity boundaries are arbitrary and change frequently depending upon input. For example, the persona can identify with social groups (tribes, families, political parties, nations, religions, etc.), biological structures (mammals, races, the whole body, the head, the brain, etc.) and evidently with just about anything at all. Exposure to certain chemical changes (such as acute stress or LSD, for example) can dissolve the persona's currently maintained identity subroutines and cause the persona to identify with other people, places and things and even identity with ALL experience. The reverse seems to also be true. Currently maintained identity boundaries can be contracted and removed as examplified in the exposur to the (currently illegal) anesthetic ketamine, wherein the persona no longer identifies nor is aware of the physical body. > 2. We do not know to what extent the self, at least the core of it, is in > place at birth. The alternative, which, in its extreme form, is unsettling > to many, is that the self is totally "written by" experience. The persona relies upon mental inter reaction to "exist". The concept of a "self" comes from the mental creation of identity boundaries which vary constantly depending on input to the persona. As a mental structure, the persona ceases to "be" in the absence of any input much as a comuter program ceases to operate when the computer is shut off. > 3. We don't know how profound is the effect of culture on the self. Is it > possible that, in cultures that value the collective (e.g., family, > religious group) over the individual, there is no clearly delineated self? Human cultures are nothing more than specific persona subroutines, thought patterns, which include identity boundaries which determine what the culture "is". Just as the persona is in constant flux so are all human cultures. > In the way of summarizing what we know, here is a description of the human > self: > > The human self is a self-organizing, interactive system of thoughts, > feelings, and motives that characterizes an individual. It gives rise to an > enduring experience of physical and psychological existence--a > phenomenological sense of constancy and predictability. The persona includes all of the above. The self is > reflexive and dynamic in nature: responsive yet stable. " The persona creates innumerable subroutines based on a strictly mental creation I call "identity boundaries" which constitute innumerable potential "selves". (Boundaries do not exist naturally. Every "line" is equally as inclusive as it is exclusive. Boundaries which are used to establish the identity subroutine we call the "self" are only exclusive and arbitrary. One-sided lines do not exist in nature. In nature, lines connect as much as they separate. Boundaries only separate and are not found in nature). All of these are mental inter reactions and any "self" is in constant flux as input to that subroutine changes. The "self" therefore is only relatively stable IF the degree of flux is perceived as slow in any particular context. As in everything else, context is everything. > [Scott:] I would add that we must keep in mind other factors about the > "self" that we wish to preserve. > > 1. Is there really such a thing as an unconscious self and how important is > it's preservation relative to the conscious self? More? Less? Would > removing the influences of the subconscious mind be liberating or > debilitating? What if it became possible to make the unconcious ... > concious? The issue of the so-called "conscious" versus the "unconscious" provides an interesting way to catagorize the actions of the persona. What one subroutine has no current associated connection to (or has lost connection to) another then that can be called "unconscious" from EITHER of the subroutines' structural "perspective". There are other models which divide things into more functional aspects. > 2. The self clearly engages in self-deception. Some of these deceptions > are positive illusions, others are negative but they are an important part > of how we perceive ourselves. Point being, do you want to preserve your > self-deceptions? The persona clearly engages in multiple and sometimes seemingly contradictory actions. Some of these opposing actions can be useful in certain contexts for achieving certain specific goals. Sometims not. As a part of the ongoing flux of the persona, these contradictory actions are, nevertheless, what constitute the persona as it continues its overall actions. > A bibliographic web site covering various aspects of the self can be found > at: > > http://www.canisius.edu/~gallaghr/pi.html > > in addition there is a society and a journal for self and identity for those > interested at: > > http://www.soton.ac.uk/~psyweb/ISSI/ > One amusing and insightful website deals with discovering how arbitrary the identity boundaries are. Retired British architect Douglas Harding demonstrates how you have no head at http://www.headless.org If we speak of the "self" as a given entity, this precludes the possibility that things are quite different than we thought. When almost continuous paradoxes arise in the examination of any viewpoint, this may be a good indication that we need to question our underlying assumptions. I once bet my son that I could derive Godzilla from the application of the quadratic equation if I could assign specific variables to the equation. He agreed. So I said, "Given that x is Godzilla...." If we begin from the assumption of a discrete entity called the "self", we run into mountains of evidence that this entity is as hard to nail down as custard pie, as elusive as the Holy Grail and as contradictory in its nature as Schrodinger's cat. So let us not assume that we need to add more cornstarch to the pie, nor make careful drawings of what the Grail should look like nor assume that the "self" is a quantum kitty cat. Whatever is requred to generate the persona in theory, we do know that a physical body seems to do the job currently. Until this whole thing can be demonstrated one way or another, keeping the body around seems a good place to start. That's one reason I like cryonics. It is an effort to keep the investigation going. > I agree with Dave that it would be helpful to have a better understanding of > what it is that we want to preserve, but after reviewing some of the > material at the web sites above, it becomes clear that questions surrounding > the nature of the self are quite complex and far from being resolved. I agree. That's why I favor preserving everything available. Head, toes and whatever is in between. Upload my mind, freeze my body, do it all! There is nothing to lose even if there is nothing to lose. ...ESPECIALLY if there is no THING to lose. Thanks, Scott! -George Smith "Quivis est, contradictio!" Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=14302