The Self Illusion - Why There's No 'You' Inside Your Head - Prof Bruce Hood
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ม.ค. 2019
- Get early access to our latest psychology lectures: bit.ly/new-talks5
Most of us believe that we are unique and coherent individuals, but are we?
The idea of a “Self” has existed ever since humans began to live in groups and become sociable. Those who embrace the self as an individual in the West, or a member of the group in the East, feel fulfilled and purposeful. This experience seems incredibly real, but a wealth of recent scientific evidence reveals that this notion of the independent, coherent self is an illusion - it is not what it seems.
In this talk, Professor Bruce Hood reveals how the self emerges during childhood and how the architecture of the developing brain enables us to become social animals dependent on each other. You’ll learn how the self is the product of our relationships and interactions with others, and it exists only in our brains. Prof Hood argues, however, that though the self is an illusion, it is one that humans cannot live without.
Professor Bruce Hood is the Professor of Developmental Psychology in Society in the School of Experimental Psychology at the University of Bristol. He has been a research fellow at Cambridge University and University College London, a visiting scientist at MIT and a faculty professor at Harvard.
He has been awarded an Alfred Sloan Fellowship in neuroscience, the Young Investigator Award from the International Society of Infancy Researchers, the Robert Fantz memorial award and voted to Fellowship status by the society of American Psychological Science.
He is the founder of the world’s largest expert speaker database Speakezee.org, and the bestselling author of ”Supersense”, ‘The Self Illusion”, and the ”Domesticated Brain.’ His new book, “Possessed” is published by Allen Lane in 2019.
Links:
Get our latest psychology lectures emailed to your inbox: bit.ly/new-talks5
Check out our next event: theweekenduniversity.com/events/
Follow Bruce on twitter: @profbrucehood
Check out Bruce’s books: amzn.to/2LPwuul
For more information on Speakezee, please see: speakezee.org
Look up non duality - Rupert Spira, Jim Newman, Tony Parsons - all very good at illuminating the illusory nature of the so called 'separate self'.
lol? People are obviously separate.
And they prove that we can totally live without a sense of a ‘separate self’
@@TheGuiltsOfUsyes of course. There are apparently separate bodies which appear to be made of matter. But all matter is proved to be made of energy and it is the same energy which appears as these apparently separate forms. And the sense of being a someone who lives in side of the body and who is a separate energy from the energy of life is an illusion
@@TheGuiltsOfUsthey are no People.
Francis Lucille 👌 - Rupert Spiras teacher. I suspect Rupert is dyslexic though from listening and reading his texts 🤔
This talk by Bruce Hood is so clear and not bogged down by so called “spirituality” or “spiritual teachings”.
56:50 is a great analogy for self
From 9:00 intersting analogy about self , think more about it
The experience of self is no illusion, which is the only thing that really matters.
What a great speaker Bruce Hood is - a wonderful talk.
This is strikingly familiar to the epistemological theories of Nietszche. He deconstructs the ordinary, common ways we think of ourselves:. Instead of conceiving the self as a unity, and an enduring, substantial ego, Nietszche posits the soul as a multiplicity in flux with no fixed thinker(ego) . Because the human mind structures an essentially unknowable reality, it falsifies whatever it is we're experiencing. Although Nietszche seems like he contradicts himself frequently, his philosophical and psychological insights into the nature of the self and consciousness are really interesting.
And being interesting is the main goal of any philosopher, mm-kay…
That's because he got that entire theory from Schopenhauer, who was himself influenced by Buddhism.
Nietzsche does not believe in a soul
The Self is the thinker...and the feeler, the sensor, and the one who intuits. The Self is the Being...the one who experiences. Consciousness is an aspect of the Self and consciousness has 4 functions. Nietszche was a nihilist and was mentally ill. Everything he wrote should be taken with a grain of salt or digested with a strong discriminating consciousness. Nihilists do not know or understand Being.
Very useful comment thank you
Wow, this is like what
U. G. Krishnamurti said but he goes deeper into it. I always wondered about this but a good example is, what if you got in a car accident at 35 yrs old and lost all your memory due to head injury, but your organism, we call the human body survived and functions fine? Technically the self that was in that body is dead now, you are gone but the body which is real, remains.
the self was never alive it is a dead thing already, it rather doesn't operate in the body after the accident.
mewe.com/join/mind-is-a-myth
The self isn't dead, the 'self' code has simply been rewritten lol.
??? All that would mean is my memory is gone.
Love this. Also, there is only a "self" because our minds is so addicted to "duality." Humans are basically sleep-walking. We're in a dellusion my friends.
the self is a convenient tool for conducting our actions. your subconscious idea of self is what transmits out. your body knows how to be confident. it is the self that conducts this and others interpret this information.
This is something that I was trying to convey to my roommate just half an hour ago. I was telling him that free will is an illusion and that in the end, determinism is correct, but that the illusion of having free will is useful because it influences our thought patterns in a way that tends to make us more functional. So there is no free will, but it's "better" if for the most part we act like we have free will.
@@wandererstraining Not like you have any choice anyways ;)
You should save the questions for the END! I feel the flow of delivery is constantly disrupted by questions/comment the TH-cam viewer cannot hear ...For someone like me, with ADD, makes it very difficult to stay tuned in. Fascinating topic but I'll have to find a different video to watch :0(
Wish people wouldn’t keep interrupting
Did no one think to dim the room lights so that the slides would be somewhat visible. Otherwise what’s the point of showing them?
Maybe there is no dimming lol
Our narratives are products of our ego. A discourse of our conscious mind. The self is not our Ego.The self is the emptiness that left taken away our conscious talk.
Thank you!
Repeat the question or do not take questions.
37:54 Many, many, many people can't seem to do this.
Please no questions during a presentation like this. We can't hear anything either way and the ones who question stuff talk instead of asking.
what do you think of the idea that the sense of self, like the sense of sight, is to aid survival? Its more efficient for people to save themselves than to try and save everyone else. So the sense of self is a survival mechanism to help the body make decisions which aid survival.
mewe.com/join/mind-is-a-myth
Self is a ancient programme in us , You are the controller on that self to a point , As in order self to stop breathing 😀 itl reject you , Its safety mode lol
no, the self is more like an add-on... it isn't responsible for body's natural intelligence to adapt and survive. The self is more of a cultural entity, a mask... it isn't really needed, the body works fine with or without it.
Very good way of putting it. I might argue that the sense of self emerges when we are born into the world. We begin our existence completely dependent and then a subject-object relationship emerges which goes on for a lifetime.
I’m drawn to Eastern ideas that the self is illusory and all that exists (living and nonliving) is just part of “conscious existence,” for lack of a better term. It’s just a nondualistic perspective of reality. But then I ask, “How does one live that out, other than just being aware of it?” And for me, that’s why a sense of self seems necessary for survival-to your point.
@@228bradjones Self is the Brains safety mode , You control self , If self controls you, Its usually a sign of mental health problems
Amazing
A chimp is not much different, long childhood, brain size, social activity. That makes language so fascinating
Great lecture. Plenty of good content.
The universe emerges from the self. The self is all there is. Everything you see is an extension of YOU.
Obviously nonsense.
@@TheGuiltsOfUsYour comment, a good example of nonsense ❤
G.I. Gurdjieff
Legion
“Man has no individual i. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small "i"s, very often entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other, mutually exclusive and incompatible.
Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking, "i". And each time his “i” is different. just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality. Man's name is legion.”
@periodic reset of civilizations ironic huh? I am a non dualist and don't have any real contact with Gurdjieff groups. He does get mention sometime in Rupert Spira writings and vids.
@periodic reset of civilizations Ha! I talk to a lot of "non dualists" who don't get it ;)
What utter drivel
I wish he'd repeat the questions...
Bau not all languages use those thermes: "I" and "Me", "Self", in Spanish there is just one for the whole that is "Yo" so what "Yo" is? Is it "me"? Is it "I" or is it "Myself"?
This proff is crazy
When i was 19 i took shrooms and figured out there was no self inside "me" very strange but positive experience
Same bro, but on Lsd at 25. It really is amazing.
What do you mean
@@kimirakash999 It's very hard to explain to someone who hasn't noticed it. There isn't somebody inside the skull planning out what to think or say, it arises on it's own accord. What we call Me is made out of thought, sense perceptions, and memory, and there isn't a little person apart from that. When you go into deep sleep or anesthesia, all sense perceptions, thoughts, and memories disappear, as does a sense of self, because they are the same thing. Another way I would attempt to point to this, is to notice that THIS moment, RIGHT NOW, is as it is and can't be any different, so if you notice you're thinking about a pink elephant, that's what's happening, it can't be otherwise in this moment, nobody is doing it. I'm not optimistic that this will make sense cause it's very contrary to what everyone thinks. When "I" use the words I, me, or you, I really just mean this location as apposed to that location, nobody is doing anything, all of this including the senss of self just arises.
I got that on lsd. “Its all connected there is no me inside my head, its all an illusion” but then i got addicted to drugs and im in recovery now🤣
@@Actingthemaggot69 How can you be addicted to drugs? You don't really exist? There is no you. You're just an illusion.
To say that the mind is dependent on the brain is like saying that electricity is dependant on the light bulb. A damaged bulb doesn't prove that electricity which lights it is dependent on it.
Do you mean the mind as in that which thinks, or as in that which is conscious?
@@robertgerow670 both.
One can speak of a brain, but not a mind.
Electricity is dependent on a generator or weather conditions generating it. Without these, no electricity
I didn't hear da da da or ba ba ba, it was tha tha tha both times.
Thing is, you can hear whatever you want to it to hear, assume it is ba ba ba, and you hear ba ba ba, similarly for tha tha tha
Prof Bruce Hood speaks of the "parallel world" and "parallel information" around the 8 minute marker. If someone could define what they think he means by these terms, it would greatly help me conceptualize what he is trying to say. Please and thank you :)
What he means, if I’m not mistaken, is that the external world/information is occurring simultaneously (parallel) as we process it internally. And that the illusion of a ‘self’ we sense is an emergent process which helps us digest and interact with the complex world by summarizing, filling in the blanks, etc., to sort of generate ongoing coherence.
Hope that helps! I definitely agree with Hood that noticing the self to be an illusion can be quite empowering.
I understand that there is a real world outside of brains. The brain uses it's mechanisms and it's perceptions from 5 senses to construct a parallel "simulation" inside the brain in order to navigate in the real world outside. Clearly two parallel "worlds". There's a third one too. The third is a world of communicated ideas. In that world lives characters like Shakespeare or Darth Vader, and all things related to words and music and all concepts like justice, freedom etc. All of which are not "real".
I see self as just your being conscious, your experience of being conscious is your experience alone and not anybody's else's and that is what makes you an individual self. You can't say the self is an illusion anymore then you could say your experience of being conscious is an illusion.
Yea it suggests that you’re not having an experience lol
@@neonpop80 Exactly, and if you can't experience anything you can't know anything. So when you say " the self is an illusion " your actually saying everything I know is an illusion, but that also makes the illusion an illusion as well so it all just ends up being a paradox.
I want to talk with you on this matter brother william .
1 ) he said awarness to conciousness i.e sense of self is illsuion. So why scientists are in search of what conciousness is? In other words they are mentally deluded? I think instead of claiming these kind of things we can say that he himself is illusion nothing more 😂
@@umerkhattab5786 When you say the self is an illusion it is through " self " that you are saying it is an illusion so the statement implies that an illusion can " know " itself . If an illusion is just something that it doesn't appear to be, then who is it that knows that? No illusion could be known to exist without a self ( knower ) to perceive it's existence therefore there is a duality there and a duality represents difference therefore the self cannot be an illusion and the illusion cannot be the self. If you say the self is an illusion in the sense that it doesn't exist then your statement represents an absolute contradiction since it is through " self " that you make that statement, it becomes an absolute contradiction as the statement " I don't exist " is an absolute contradiction.since you couldn't make that statement if you didn't exist.
@@williamburts5495
Yeah ...!! People with these kind of statements shouldn't exist 😂
the sense of a singular self comes from the internal historian or stenographer... some aspect of our being that observes everything and tags experiences with some sort of code for later retrieval... it seems to be emotionally linked... stronger emotions tend to be easier to recall later.
That's all mental,it's a part of the illusion,so there's no way;YOU;can get this,because there's no you who can get it .So the falling away of a self is non-existing,because how can something that dos'nt exist disappear?There's just life happening ,but no observer and the observed,that duality falls away totaly.
"self" denotes a particular human being however that is perceived and explained from within. There-s no need for "another self within myself" nor for demeaning it as "illusory".
I get it...
This is all nonsense!
It's too bad that school doesn't have a better system for presentations (more control over lighting the speaker, not the screen. Placing the camera somewhere other than an aisle with people walking in front of it.). It became unwatchable after Bruce asked the obvious (can we turn the lights down on the screen) and then told "no." It seemed like his enthusiasm for what he was presenting fell off. Mine did.
We are not independent selves at the center of a subjective universe.
Err, lol? Is this a joke? There is obviously a self that watched this video and typed this comment.
The more I read or listen to arguments trying to explain our sense of self, the more I realize how much we still need to learn about how the mind emerges from billions of neurons. If it was ethical, the most productive experiment would be to study the healthy brain of someone who, from birth, has lost all senses except for the sense of smell. This person would have no sensation of orientation or existing in a physical space. Would a sense of self emerge in this case? Could we call this a person at all?
And that's the six million dollar statement..."if it's ethical" I understand that we need to keep advancing scientifically, but there's always going to be people, governments that will be happy to make a "brave new world" out of these kinds of advances.
no amount of learning or gathering data will end the illusion of self, a seperate person. As a matter of fact, knowledge - or the illusion of knowledge - only reinforces the illusion of seperate self that dreams it lives in time.
This reminds me of language deprivation experiments.
Please in next video repeat the audience's questions out loud yourself because they are not microphoned and I struggle to hear.
Why do we form as a person at conception?
mewe.com/join/mind-is-a-myth
It’s not at conception. During childhood language starts teaching one that one is a self with others constantly calling you by name and referring to your body as you in saying your handsome or pretty which is insisting you are the body.
no 'we' don't because there is no 'we'. The 'me' or 'we' is completely imagined. And ofcourse there is no 'why' because there is no meaning or purpose, another mind-made dream concept... the natural reality is empty of all of these concepts and beliefs.
This is closely similar anatta from buddhism.
Anatta
So, it "self" is an "illusion," what is having the illusion?
(God)-You, did it. The illusion that there are others, other than them. There aren't really, they don't exist. You, the I, is the entire existence❤
That's reailty We are as human
Being under Circumstances we
Can't get over it whether feelings,
Thoughts , limited consciousness,
Unlimited consciousness , For real
The life is fuckin illusion 😔 .
yes, the 'we' also being the great illusion. Completely imaginary.
The best alternative is concept. The self is only a concept, where concepts means a mental representation. A notion but nothing more than that. If there is no notion of self until 18/24 months of years of age, then it means it is not an underlying principle of consciousness but a concept that arises helping or not our interaction with the world. It is a biological emergence and a psychological weight. The only direct experience we can have about it is that "it is not there".
I see self as just being conscious, your being conscious is just your experience of being conscious and not anybody else's and that is what makes you an individual self.
@@williamburts5495 Well that is what the book demonstrates. there is no fixed identity as we think or believe. It is also my experience over 22 years of meditation. There is no individual self at all. It is merely a mirage.
@@truthfulparent A mirage is something experienced by a self! An illusion is something that can fool our mind into thinking that something is that is is actually not due to circumstances that can effect our senses. In the dark someone's mind could mistake a rope to be a snake but when you put on the lights you know it's a rope because the darkness is dispelled. All of this makes an illusion something experienced, but the person experiencing the illusion isn't an illusion because the illusion is something he is conscious of, not something he consciously is. An illusion is a false perception, but a perception is how " you " ( self ) perceive something, a perception can't exist without a " you " or self.
@@williamburts5495 Maybe we are using the words attaching different meanings to them. An illusion is something that seems to be, but is not. A mirage is an optical illusion, like the appearance of a sheet of water in a desert or on a hot road . I don't like repeating the words of others, I speak only from my experience. Truth when is not ours, remains still untrue. In my experience the self is a mirage, it keeps on emerging here and there, as a psychological illusion, but it is not more that. I can't say, for now, it is completely gone... Can you? blessings ...
@@truthfulparent But if a mirage is a optical illusion how does that relate to a self? Anyway, to experience a mirage makes you something different from the mirage.
Man, this comment section is a clusterfuck.
HAHAHA agreed. amazing how much arrogant hauteur these folks can muster up when they actually dont have the first fucking clue
If one damages a computer of course as the one using it one cannot express oneself well or at all through it any longer. That does not prove that the computer produces the thoughts coming out of it.
I'm interested in the Brains of babies . I remember a Lot of my first year Here . a Brain is a slimy thing to taste , Sometimes when the Airbag goes off you can taste it :\ QC
Was your earliest years recorded on camera ?
I believe the gut brain is the primitive brain. The brain in our head evolved to get food for the gut brain.
I would assert that 'I think, therefore I Am' proves beyond the shadow of a doubt I am an independent agent. I don't need to know exactly what I am (beyond independent in thought), where I am, how I got here or where I'm going. These things are essentially irrelevant.
Everything is a spectrum. 'The self' belongs to the human spectrum with 'the other' being the opposite of self. A spectrum is 3 things- left, right, and center, and the center is where The Eternal resides. We are far too fractionalized to associate 'the self' with 'The Eternal' but that doesn't stop us from attempting to return to center.
Dualism ignores the center. Dualism is just absolutist thinking, and absolutist thinking is the most detrimental form of thinking under the sun.
I would assert that 'the self' is all there is, and that 'the other' is merely an extension of you. Furthermore, this is a much healthier form of thinking. Especially if you appreciate your independence.
Healthier but necessarily accurate.
@@a13xdunlop Why not?
@@a13xdunlop We don't experience actuality. We could have heaven on earth if we simply had an objective understanding of our own subjectivity. It simply doesn't matter if this is a simulation. The simulation is emergent, and consciousness is the source.
Cartesian doubt "proves" nothing.
@@MeleanDialogue What does this have to do with Cartesian doubt? If the self does not exist, who am I conversing with?
Moreover some people thinks that Buddha said that 2000 years ago Oh wow ...!! Wait wait wait....!!!
Do you know saint culture in subcontinent? They always insist that yourself is just illusion your desires are illusion take them out of the box to be happy and peaceful and thats what budhha said.
Aham Bramhasmi
I heard baba first time round
if the mind depends on the brain then how do you explain NDE's and OBE's ?
Hi William,
Thanks for your comment.
These talks might be of interest to you:
- th-cam.com/video/iYwgwfrHOSk/w-d-xo.html
&
th-cam.com/video/3VoixOyTPwg/w-d-xo.html
Best,
Niall
Consciousness
@@lieromarchesi9180 I agree, people who had elucid NDE's like what Pam Reynolds had reveals to me that there is a duality between mind and brain.
hallucinations, no different that a night dream.
@@MadMax-gc2vj Elucid OBE's like what Pam Reynolds had and the descriptions that she gave of her operation while unconscious on a operating table and being that she could only know these details from an angle of vision that she was not in would suggest otherwise.
he is wrong about bodily control... there are techniques one can learn to control just about anything within the body. Just because you have never heard of them does not mean they are not there... example, if you *really* need to go #2, you can pull close and release your butt sphincter about 12 times to reset it for a half hour... you will get the severe urge again, but you can do the same thing and it will give you another half hour.
The Hindus and the Buddhists or some other religions has already figured this out thousands of years ago. 😁
You get angry emails because you do not have any idea of the questions involved in the area you pontificate about. It is embarrassing to listen to psychologists attempt to offer conceptual insight into any question not directly amenable to operational definition. Facile.
And yet you’re not making anymore sense
Lol keep crying about it
@@finallyanime If you think so, thanks. It's nice to have confirmation of my views. (BTW: If you do not understand the slightly and lightly worded critique, you have NO business commenting (then again, many of those on site -- including the host -- have no business engaging in any serious scholarly debate).
@@roganjoshkrishna2950 Very astute observation. The intellectual force of your insight is overwhelming. Well, whelming anyway.
Maybe there's a better word for it besides "illusion" because Self actually does exist. The problem seems to be our true nature being occulded because of our entanglement with the identity for lack of self-realization. The Drukama tradition has been releasing teachings on the matter th-cam.com/video/Tzaq5hRMHiw/w-d-xo.html I find this all fascinating.
Hes not implying that it doesn't exist but its not what it seems. Kinda like the square in the illusion he posted. The square is an emergent property of the other shapes. Our "self" is an emergent property of environment, genes etc. We have this sense that it's a fixed thing but its not. Its always changing. In flux. This is a good talk on it as well. th-cam.com/video/YIXEbVCqr2Q/w-d-xo.html
The "probable reality of self". Also, he shouldn't say there is no you in the title of his book either, but hes trying to be provocative and spooky so people read his book.
@@JMT34237 I agree with every word you speak. Can't have everything and
you at the same time
Analyse the line "get a grip of your self" if you don't inflict on self , You will run on auto pilot , Self is automaton, Without you driving, Its going to crash 😉
@@OMAR-vq3yb Yes provoking clicks , By hinting self is illusionary
We're real until were dead. We aren't robots. We think, therefore we exist temporarily.
You only THINK you're real, not a robot and actually DO exist. 🤔
@@silathru8388 I think ..... therefore I THINK I am. ;)
I think....therefore I AM. Hallucination.
@@joselinema I think therefore I think I am. ;) silly rabbits!
Well thoughts just happen actually because if you were a thought you’d be gone when thoughts left and if you or if there was a thinker you’d be able to just stop thinking but you can’t do obviously you’re not the thinker you’re that that is inbetween two thoughts
self is an illusion to who?
Conscious awareness ?
Tat Twam Asi
My self is not my brain. If “my self” is “my brain,” and “my brain” is “mine,” then who does “my brain” belong to?
Let’s suppose that one were to reply that “my brain” belongs to “me.” What are we to make of such an answer? First of all, it overlooks the fact that we have supposed “my self” to be “my brain;” secondly, since I am “me,” and I am “my brain,” the answer amounts to nothing more than “my brain” belongs to “my brain.” But this doesn’t answer our question at all. The question being asked is “who” is doing the possessing of “my brain.” We cannot introduce another “my brain” in order to account for the possessor of “my brain,” without asking who this newly introduced “my brain” belongs to. Let’s try to analyze the terms and relations being invoked here.
It has been supposed that “my self” is “my brain.” These two phrases, “my self” and “my brain,” have a commonality: a possessive relation, and this possessive relation is invoked by the word “my.” Whenever the word “my” is used, a possessive relation is established between the following two diverse terms: “me” and “mine.” The former term (i.e. “me”) is the possessor of the latter term (i.e. “mine”). Simply put, the word “my” implies a “me” that possesses “something,” and that “something” possessed is “mine.” Let’s go deeper and explore the relation between the “me” and the “mine,” and how it relates to our initial question.
We have clearly established the fact that there is “something” being referred to by the word “me,” and “something” being referred to by the word “mine.” What might these “somethings” be? Let’s break up this analysis into two separate sections:
A) What is it that the word “me” refers to? Obviously, the word “me” must refer to a person, and, in this particular case, this person is I. However, we have supposed that I am “my brain,” so whenever the word “me” is used, “my brain” is what is being referred to. Therefore, since I am “my brain,” the word “me” really refers to “my brain.”
B) What is it that the word “mine” refers to? Obviously, the word “mine” must refer to something that is possessed by “me,” otherwise the word “mine” would be meaningless. Furthermore, since our initial question was “who does “my brain” belong to?,” we are committed to holding that this “something” possessed by “me” is “my brain,” since “my brain” belongs to “me” because it is “mine.”
We have now reached an important step in the argument: we have recognized that “me” refers to “my brain,” and “mine” refers to “my brain.” To repeat, our question was the following: “If “my self” is “my brain,” then who does “my brain” belong to?” We saw that “my” implies a “me” and a “mine;” and we are committed to the view that the “me” refers to “my brain,” and the “mine” refers to “my brain.” So, if I am “my brain,” then the only answer available is the following: “my brain” belongs to “my brain.”
Has the question been answered? Clearly not. Indeed, our problem has amplified! We are forced to ask the same question again, because another “my” relation has been introduced, and this possessive relation is between a “me” and a “mine.” Therefore, since the “me” being referred to is nothing other than “my brain” and the “mine” being referred to is nothing other than “my brain,” the only available answer is the following: “my brain belongs to my brain which belongs to my brain.” We are thus forced to ask the same question, because we are trying to figure out who “my brain” belongs to. Ultimately, we are left asking the same question again, and again, and again without a conclusive answer. We have been driven into a vicious regress with no way of escape.
The only possible solution is to reject the view that I am “my brain,” and adopt the view that “my brain" belongs to “something” other than “my brain,” and that this “something” is a transcendental Subject which is not identical to the brain which it possesses. The Subject is immaterial, Spiritual, and has no metrical properties. The Subject, or “self,” is known by acquaintance, and not by description. The Subject, or “I”, is known to me, because I know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple.” I could only know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple,” if I knew the meaning of each of the components of the proposition “I,” “aware,” and “red apple.” If I did not know the meaning of any of those components of that proposition, then I would not be able to know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple,” and the proposition would be meaningless to me. Since that proposition is not meaningless to me, I necessarily know the meaning of “I”, since I know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple.” And since I know the meaning of “I” by acquaintance, I know that I am a self that knows himself directly as something concrete and actual. I couldn’t know myself by acquaintance as something concrete and actual unless my “self” doing the knowing was something that existed and was concrete and actual. Ergo, the Subject exists, and it is concrete, actual, and immaterial.
mewe.com/join/mind-is-a-myth
I am not my brain, and my brain is not me. For proof of this, let’s take up the contrary and suppose that “my self” is “my brain.” What are the implications of this identity? If “my self” is “my brain,” and “my brain” is “mine,” then who does “my brain” belong to?
Let’s suppose that one were to reply that “my brain” belongs to “me.” What are we to make of such an answer? First of all, it overlooks the fact that we have supposed “my self” to be “my brain;” secondly, since I am “me,” and I am “my brain,” the answer amounts to nothing more than “my brain” belongs to “my brain.” But this doesn’t answer our question at all. The question being asked is “who” is doing the possessing of “my brain.” We cannot introduce another “my brain” in order to account for the possessor of “my brain,” without asking who this newly introduced “my brain” belongs to. Let’s try to analyze the terms and relations being invoked here.
It has been supposed that “my self” is “my brain.” These two phrases, “my self” and “my brain,” have a commonality: a possessive relation, and this possessive relation is invoked by the word “my.” Whenever the word “my” is used, a possessive relation is established between the following two diverse terms: “me” and “mine.” The former term (i.e. “me”) is the possessor of the latter term (i.e. “mine”). Simply put, the word “my” implies a “me” that possesses “something,” and that “something” possessed is “mine.” Let’s go deeper and explore the relation between the “me” and the “mine,” and how it relates to our initial question.
We have clearly established the fact that there is “something” being referred to by the word “me,” and “something” being referred to by the word “mine.” What might these “somethings” be? Let’s break up this analysis into two separate sections:
A) What is it that the word “me” refers to? Obviously, the word “me” must refer to a person, and, in this particular case, this person is I. However, we have supposed that I am “my brain,” so whenever the word “me” is used, “my brain” is what is being referred to. Therefore, since I am “my brain,” the word “me” really refers to “my brain.”
B) What is it that the word “mine” refers to? Obviously, the word “mine” must refer to something that is possessed by “me,” otherwise the word “mine” would be meaningless. Furthermore, since our initial question was “who does “my brain” belong to?,” we are committed to holding that this “something” possessed by “me” is “my brain,” since “my brain” belongs to “me” because it is “mine.”
We have now reached an important step in the argument: we have recognized that “me” refers to “my brain,” and “mine” refers to “my brain.” To repeat, our question was the following: “If “my self” is “my brain,” then who does “my brain” belong to?” We saw that “my” implies a “me” and a “mine;” and we are committed to the view that the “me” refers to “my brain,” and the “mine” refers to “my brain.” So, if I am “my brain,” then the only answer available is the following: “my brain” belongs to “my brain.”
Has the question been answered? Clearly not. Indeed, our problem has amplified! We are forced to ask the same question again, because another “my” relation has been introduced, and this possessive relation is between a “me” and a “mine.” Therefore, since the “me” being referred to is nothing other than “my brain” and the “mine” being referred to is nothing other than “my brain,” the only available answer is the following: “my brain belongs to my brain which belongs to my brain.” We are thus forced to ask the same question, because we are trying to figure out who “my brain” belongs to. Ultimately, we are left asking the same question again, and again, and again without a conclusive answer. We have been driven into a vicious regress with no way of escape.
The only possible solution is to reject the view that I am “my brain,” and adopt the view that “my brain” belongs to “something” other than “my brain,” and this “something” is me. Therefore, I am not my brain, and my brain is not me.
The whole point of the talk is to show you an alternative in which "I" and "mine" are models that don't likely reflect reality "out there".
The common the you get from people who dive into psychodelics is the idea of some unity in which sense of self dissipates into oblivion. So, it seems like the concept of "I" is derivative of a "loop" or a feedback of the abstraction of continuum as a reductionist necessity to process patterns. So "I" merely becomes a pattern in cognition which is differentiated from everything else. As such "I" seems to be independent from processes beyond it, which I may be misinterpreting as "in control" of.
So, the idea is that "I" is an abstraction that can only exist as an abstraction. As such, it is artificial.
The “I” is a singularity or a simulacrum continuum of which all time is processed at its center. It is the center of the map or the simulation that we call experience. It is subjective/topical and lacks physicality yet is a substance who’s quality is reflected outside of itself.
An alchemist’s achievement is the attainment of the philosopher’s stone through the transformative mercury.
How do you know u exist
@@faceofyah527 Because I understand the meaning of the proposition “I am aware of the red apple.” I could not understand the meaning of this proposition unless I had knowledge of its components (either by acquaintance or description). I know the “I” by acquaintance.
@@PessimisticIdealism ur begging the question, I'm asking how u know U EXIST, u never gave a non question begging argument
I am really irritated by a professor who is so disorganized that he doesn't check his slide show in advance and so discover we won't be able to see anything. Want a good take on "no self" ? Check out Sam Harrus. And by the way. ? 99.99 percent of people who experienced no self, through psychedelics , meditation or by accident, this had absolutely no effect on their life. They remained the same old same old. Power of habit, tradition and ego.
no self is not really an experience. Experience implies something that is sensed on a timeline, which is a personal projection.
??? What drivel.
That was an uncomfortable feeling the Donald Trump comment.😁 Anothers perspective of an emotional uncomfortable feeling passing through.
Odd that he lists "Gender identity" and asks "What am I?" I presume you are a human. Why would you feel so alien as to need to ask what you are?
Because some people aren't even assured of even that and this is true.
As a sort of important "what the hell are you talking about (limitless possibilities here) -- what is the self illusion an illusion of? Kinda important point. try -- really hard (unlike your talk) to avoid tautology.
If the self did not exist, or was an illusion, then a being could never come to recognize itself as a “being,” and the proposition “The self does not exist,” could never be known in principle, and would be meaningless. In fact, if the self did exist, but did not endure, and was actually composed of infinitely many discrete “selves” across time, then those discrete selves would themselves be composed of infinitely many discrete selves and never be able to recognize themselves as selves, or each other as separate selves.
Furthermore, recognition or memory would be impossible, because no self would be able to recognize itself or have any memory of itself. For example, Self A would cease to exist before it could even know itself as being Self A. Any knowledge of Self A would have to be known by a subsequent Self B as the false memories of Self B. However, by the time Self B could come to know either itself as Self B, or Self A as the false memories of Self B, Self B would already have ceased to exist.
By the time I recognize that a given memory that I apparently have actually belongs to someone other than myself, the self that recognized this fact would already have ceased to exist! My existence becomes a thought contained within a different thought, contained within a different thought, ad infinitum. Or, to put it another way, any apparent “self” becomes the adjective of a thought which is an adjective of a thought held by no actual thinker, because a thinker would himself be the adjective of a thought held by an adjective of a thought! But a thought not held by an actual thinker is absurd!
The self is known by acquaintance, and not by description. The self, or “I”, is known to me, because I know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple.” I could only know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple,” if I knew the meaning of each of the components of the proposition “I,” “aware,” and “red apple.” If I did not know the meaning of any of those components of that proposition, then I would not be able to know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple,” and the proposition would be meaningless to me. Since that proposition is not meaningless to me, I necessarily know the meaning of “I”, since I know the meaning of the proposition, “I am aware of the red apple.” And since I know the meaning of “I” by acquaintance, I know that I am a self that knows himself directly as something concrete and actual. I couldn’t know myself by acquaintance as something concrete and actual unless my “self” doing the knowing was something that existed and was concrete and actual. Ergo, the self exists.
mewe.com/join/mind-is-a-myth
The proposition 'I am thinking' is false. The true version of it would be 'There is thinking', but it's hard for you to understand, and, thus, you try to apply the ego theory to the bundle theory without realizing they're different views. There is no need for any mystical immaterial entity for experience to be created by a brain. Even a memory of past experiences caused by a brain is an experience itself.
@@_sarpa No one takes bundle theory seriously.
This is pure buddhism, a good work. We Buddhists know that people appear time to time to propagate the fundamentals of Buddhism to the world.
funny that you said "we" Buddhists.
@@williamcallahan5218 What is funny in it?
it's not buddhism. Buddhism is a mind-made invention.
No, it is not. Buddhism is bs btw.
What a stupid argument. This guy never fully processed Descartes' insight.
He is a philosophical poser (and that is giving him more credit than due).
@@stanleyklein524 Chill out dude, it is clear that you are pissed at his ideas and apparent success. Stop shouting.
@@corb5654 I seldom get pissed at ideas. I do get pissed at conceptually vacuous pronouncements and logically incoherent platitudes parading as informed communication.
Sorry if that offends you. Suggestion -- don't read my replies and certainly don't bother to waste your precious time analyzing, inferring (based on what? -- e.g., jealous of Hood?!) and writing.
Can u clarify why? I think he reffears to the historical appropriation of cogitum next to the dualists, more than to his insight itself; yet it made sense to place him there while talking about illusions because Descartes tryed to see the the world without them and concluded he could only "see" his mind - which is kinda funny
Going into this video, which I haven't yet watched, is that this guy is partially correct, if what he means is that the Self is an emergent phenomenon.
Alright, he does say the self is an emergent phenomenon. I think it's ridiculous to say that because it emerges it is an illusion, but I don't disagree with what he is saying.
Our personality is not an illusion. He says the mind depends on the brain but I think people who have suffered severe brain damage in a accident etc etc. But have elucid obe's and nde's might show otherwise.
Exactly
No, I've had a nde and obes and none of what i saw and wrote down after checked out with what I saw. If you go into it with belief that it was real, you will get like a dejavu effect thinking you did see x y z when you did not. The brain fills in the blanks, just like the split brain experiments and ptsd shows. Death is a ptsd event.
@@skynet4496 some obe's give a detailed account through. I read were a women had a OBE in a hospital and she saw a shoe on a ledge while having the one and she could not see this object from the room she was in but when she described what floor and what window the shoe was on and when someone went to confirm if it was true or not they found the shoe right were she said it was.
that's cute
I FUNDAMENTALLY disagree with Prof Hood. He has NO idea of what it is like to be me. To condense my consciousness into mere firing of synapses in my brain just doesn't square with my subjective experience of reality. I could equally posit that Prof Hood is a philosophical zombie (as postulated by David Chalmers), who merely looks and behaves like a conscious human being but is actually devoid of conscious experience - but I won't, as I have no idea of what it is like to be him.
The illusion of a separate self continues after death of the physical body. The astral body is another illusion just taking shape. I think that we need to emerged back into oneness to end the insanity.
How can an illusion continue after death? There is no separate self, so nothing separate was ever born and can never die. To paraphrase Nagarjuna" the illusion is in fact also an illusion. ;)
@@williamcallahan5218 Thank u.
Who says that is true? I've had near death experiences and obes only to realize that it was actually an inserted memory/dream. I wanted to believe in a soul, but after reading the nde experiments, none showed actual data that checked out. The "proof" was hearsay, much like dejavu makes you feel you knew a thing but you really did not.
No, I've had a nde and obes and none of what i saw and wrote down after checked out with what I saw. If you go into it with belief that it was real, you will get like a dejavu effect thinking you did see x y z when you did not. The brain fills in the blanks, just like the split brain experiments and ptsd shows. Death is a ptsd event.
@@skynet4496 NDE's are never near enough, apparently. ;)
What you experienced was a "thought". Thoughts are objects that arise and come and go. How can you be something that comes and goes. (What is it that is aware of these thoughts coming and going? You are never found in a thought. ) The are perceptions and experiences but no one is having them. Find that "someone" that "you" that has these experiences and we can take it from there. Most of "my" experiences are based on the assumption that there is a real me that is having these experiences. Where is that real me? So the real question is .... 'who am I". Answer that and all other questions fall away.
his self illusion, is making him deleudid, In my mind, humans should have there big toes free, mine needed to be, for in tune body, equals no pain.
If an illusion is just something that it doesn't appear to be then who is it that knows that? No illusion could known to exist without a self ( knower ) to perceive it's existence therefore there is a duality there and a duality represents difference therefore the knower ( self ) cannot be an illusion and the illusion cannot be the self. He says that the brain creates our experiences but an experience is different from the experiencer so there is a duality there so that still doesn't explain how brain creates self.
He wasn't saying that the "brain" creates ourself. He's basically saying our thoughts create ourselves. The idea of who we see ourselves as, is a creation of our own thoughts.
@@joeabradwell3581 Descartes said, " I think therefore I am " the truth is, " I am, therefore I think " thoughts are relative things. I exist, and to know that you exist is to be conscious of your existence, it is this knowing that you " be " that is the self.
@@williamburts5495
You are right about the thoughts . I was thinking today about thoughts would they create me or I control them? Surely I can control my thoughts and they are voluntery I can decide what I should think. Someone can argue that its another thought that cause me to think but the point is who decide to choose the thought to be followed if nobody than we cannot learn or focus anything .
@@umerkhattab5786 Thoughts are mental language, you have sound vibration language that you and others can hear then you have mental language that you only know. I know the contents of my thoughts be they positive or negative, lustful or pure. As Pravrajika Divyanandaprana said, " If you can know something as an object of perception it can't be you " thoughts aren't thinkers you the self is the thinker.
@@williamburts5495 you speak my mind from age ca. 30-46. Now, 47, I am convinced I was not mistaken when I aged 22 wrote in a book "there can be no consciousness without anything it is conscious of (and be it the recognition "I am not conscious of anything particular" or the thought or feeling "o, it´s rather unconscious here!")"; in Eastern terminology, states such as dreamless deep sleep fainting would bear no signs of difference to the "goal" of yogic practices, nirvikalpa samadhi, all representing the fact of "citta vritti nirodha", the non-occurrence of motion in the sensational field (which thus collapses and with it any idea of an experiencer); more practically: w/o any such vrittis, thoughtwaves, including the sensation of phenomenal material objects, subtle objects in the form of emotions or feelings - - what is the thinker, sensor or feeler more than yet another concept made of the very same mind-stuff, maya? - that slide the speaker uses to illustrate the downright dissipation of a personality due to Alzheimer´s shows that, similar to the initial illusory (mind-made-up) cube where there were only incomplete circles makes the same point: after the eradication of all content of consciousness that seemingly so un-unthinkable, chiselled-in-stone entity we call consciousness itself (as which the self is understood in your view) turns out another pure ideation. The Sankhya philosophy compares the two seemingly different items of 1. consciousness and 2. its content to two stalks of hay leaning against each other: take one away and the other goes down with it. It´s so counter-intuitive at first that it took me 30 years to see through this last and thinnest veils of the illusion, I fully understand your perspective. The Buddha (whom I´d so long considered a fool therefore!) argues, against "my dearest" Advaitins of his Hinduist antecessors who insist upon a conscious entity named Brahman (which imho refers rather to Jungs "psychoid"/unconscious agents being the submersed 9/10th of an iceberg or Schopenhauer´s blind will to satisfy ever-increasing desires which only on our level of intelligence become conscious of their selfdestructive nature and can be overcome by reasonable denial of their fulfilment, thus reversing the painful outcome of being gratified "brutally" i.e. with the inevitable instinctivity of animal behaviour), that no liberation from eternal suffering could ever be possible if a conscious eternal being were the given fact - - we know that whatever we try to be consciously happy leads, at best, to a mild form of boredom (not to mention the tortures of illnesses, accidents and old age). Forcefully denying ourselves (this congregate of desires) of the fulfilment of these intrudors of our peaceful nothingness (as "experienced" (NOT) in deep sleep) is the only way out - no urge to see --> no seeing; no desire to know --> no consciousness evolving; no will to live --> no being, the original and undeluded void which is the vast (skr. BRIH) field not of consciousness but of POTENTIALITY containing the omnipotence to create whatever it wills into an illusory being - until it finds out, oops, the game´s BY FAR not worth the candle, and blows itself out (nir van), for good. This is described in the Veda as the fourth state beyond the three illusory mind states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep (the latter being known as "merging with Brahman" but due to unovercome desires containing the seeds for further experience, thus "causal"): Turiya, i.e. these "seeds of the soul on which devils feed" as Depeche Mode put it have been burnt through immense self discipline and effort (sadhana) during the conscious states. The Yoga Vashishta has it "the (out of the unspeakable Brahman, unconscious potential, objective nil) selfborn Brahma (individual (sic! --> only possibly selfconscious) soul, jivaatma) conceived of a "cosmic egg" (hiranyagarba) which hatched and brought forth Ishwara the creative faculty (our "God") who then created by his (actually Brahma´s, of course) will the 5 elements and these became the cause for the world and myriads of seemingly autonomous beings (jivas) to appear (no literal quotation)": now my point is, the being born IS the Brahma, the conceiving of hiranyagarba IS hiranyagarba, the will to see is, sans delay, the seeing which IS the visible world (or the eyes which seem to see a world; NOT BOTH as separate occurrences, and a third in the form of a seer of the seen which wanted to be seen by yet another one etc.) --> No will, no world, no soul. On the other hand all the willing in the world cannot create more than seemingly different entities, actions, boundaries (which has been compared to the unity of SPACE in spite of many objects seemingly each possessing distinct own spacES. Now there is no plural for space; consciousness; being; here; now - - IT JUST IS what it is in this moment, no breaks, no divisions, no du- and trialities. And since all that there ever appears in even the subtlest movement of mind which then IS but this appearing mind is maya, appearance, fancy, a hollow shadow of the real I AM (which is nothing objective, but the basis for all phenomena incl. the "only Son of God": Brahma, Jesus, Krsna: the felt (sensation = chitta vritti!) ego - as the one conscious "id (3.p.sg.) - entity" - we can still objectify!). - What remains is the unspeakable "Silence after AUM", the Parabrahman, laying dormant on that huge anaconda (Sheesha), so sick of itself that it never opens an eye again once it has seen, after one perceived human life or thousands thereof, what a mess it creates when its conscious attention disrupts te ever-peaceful wave function and creates what feels like a Kali Yuga to itself, the harder to leave the harder it tries (thence the so highly praised virtue of total equanimity in Buddhism as the surest means out of hardship) - - not unlike myself when I lay on my huge anaconda after a bingedrunk night, undaring to move any of these paining muscles in that damned body who used only to get up to get some more down to cure the hangover until my life was in shambles; which it took before I knew better and never drank a drop again. Imagine, I even used to drink more than I WRITE! What happened?! - IT just happened. Sorry. Wasn´t me, though!! (according to my sophisticationery, at least. just prove me wrong...and yes, I´m sober. wallah.) Hope that helps. Namaste.
This man bruce hood claims that self is illusion. Lets discuss about what is self or sense of self?
The awarness to envoirment is called conciousness and awarness to conciousness is called sense of self or self awarness. Dear Professer if there is no awarness to conciousness and it is just an illusion than why scientists are searching for what conciousness is ??? Tell them that there is no awarness and stop searching for these kind of useless things.
Don't confuse the limited and conditioned self (ego), personhood, with The Self or Atman described in ancient Advaita Vedanta. Bruce is referring to the conditioned and individual self or ego if you. wish. Not the Big "I am". Note: Awareness does not require a person to express, little children and dogs for example, have no "self Identity" in the ego or person sense of the term, still there is Awareness as the source of their experiencing. It is well known that small children don't recognize themselves in front of a mirror, the same with the animal... blessings
@@danielbravo8350
Well if this is the case Mr. Daniel bravo ... small children also do not have any sexual desires as well until 9 and truley until 15 so if this is the case then everything that is going on in the world is illusion just because we all cannot do it in our 1st 2 years ... are you serious ?
The thing matter is brain development sir and all that complete within first 5 years in infants .
1 ) Ego came from self
2 ) Pure Self is "Iam"
3 ) I am what society tells me really? Then how I can challenge the fallaces created by society ? How I can challenge unjusticse and illusions moreover fake ideas in the society if I am what the society tells me? Now today if all the society or whole world will agree on the point that killing the children is good Can I accept it? The answer is no the question is why ? The answer is this is my true self if we cannot negate false ideas and everything else is came from society then you can say that I am what the society tells me
@@danielbravo8350
If we use the sense of self in true way it will result in peace and hapiness in society and satisfy me as well but its misuse will cause ego jellousy and anger. That's all.
what the hell is ego? Ego as a seprete entity is an illusion
@@umerkhattab5786 Let's not fall into talking too much and preaching, living by example is all we need. You are the society you want to change. I am the world I want to change. All the rest is chit chat, and speculation. The conference of B. Hood addresses the individual and conditioned self, and he sustains is an illusion, from his scientific view, just like the greatest sages of India from Ramana to Krishnamurti have done. If one can not realize such an insight, it's ones problem and I believe in that case is better to keep silence like an oak tree.
@@danielbravo8350
I read his book as well. I think he is living in false worldview. If Iam a world then I cannot be a society and If Iam a society than I cannot challange it. B.Hood is very limited and reductionist
Lost me when his obsession with hating Trump jumped out.
wow 2 trump mentions. i dont miss the days 4 years ago where those adult babies could not help themselves but bring up Trump no matter what the subject was. he really dated the video with these comments, ironic for someone a psychologist who's supposed to be self-aware. thank god these people are now obsessed with anti vaxers and Putin (without trump) and it's no longer infecting literally every piece of content we watch.
Nothing is less an illusion than that which you experience all the time and other people concur with. This is a stupid topic.
Just close your senses and stop thinking. Now you obviously exist as a non perceiving and non thinking being. This proves that we are obviously more than brain.
we are not 'more'. There is not even a 'we'. There is only nothing. Not even a being because being is just an appearance of nothing.
Read bernardo kastrups book on why materialism is baloney, its a really interesting read
@@kidyounot3387 take a deep breath internet soldier, it's ok.
@@kidyounot3387 it's ok, your ego just had this urge to conquer a perceived enemy by making him 'wrong' and yourself 'right', therefore 'better than'. It was never about proving someone wrong for the sake of resolving anything but just to boost your own sense of importance.
@@kidyounot3387 it's ok, take a deep breath, the world is not a hostile place...
Just had to put that political crap in there, didn't you? I bet you've voted for guys well to the right of Trump. The man is still basically a 1990s business Democrat. But ORANGE MAN BAD seems have infected all corners of blue team.
Not a democrat or republican, but a boot licker looking to be famous and powerful. That's why he promised populist ideas and then helped only the corporations.
@@skynet4496 Now, how about you actually refute me? For one, who did you vote for in the 1990s and where were they on the political compass relative to Trump?
@@skynet4496 Also, you know the corporations are in favor of open borders and weakening nationalism, yes? I mean, it's not hard to see how less red tape and cheaper labor would be good for their bottom line.
I know, since Carter the left has shifted right. Trump is one of those neo-liberals that lost in 2000 in his progressive policies (YES EVEN IN 2015 HE WAS FOR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE and then he FLIPPED)
Dude, Reagan stopped enforcing the prosecution of companies that hire illegal to destroy unions. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Now TRUMP still don't enforce the laws. WHY? Because they rather point the finger at immigrants and not fine/prosecute the corrupt corporations. A WALL DOESNT STOP IT. You go after who gives them the jobs. Stop being a willful moron. Jimmy Dore and Kyle Kulinski are both independent and know that as much Trump sucked, so did Obama.
If you can be convinced there is no "self", you can be convinced to give up your private property rights as well as all your other rights. Be careful!
?
@@flatarthur3161 He's not wrong. There is sizable class of intelligent sociopaths in the population that would like to see the average Joe take this idea and run with it into a sort of nihilistic surrender.
Quite true!
@@fairoseali6398 Also, there is NO LAW making the TYPICAL WORKING AMERICAN liable for an INCOME TAX.
As he said at the start, "illusion doesn't mean something doesn't exist "
Anatta