Upvoted, not because I agree with you, but because it was an interesting text to read. More enjoyable that the original article, which feels like reductionist applause lights. (Although the original article is not that bad, just that its good parts are already better described on LW, so it brings no new value.)
Seems to me that you accuse “neo-Buddhists” of motivated cognition: they profess that there is no self, because they were promised such belief leads to end of suffering. Maybe they are experimentally right about this consequence, but just because some belief makes one happy that does not mean the belief reflects the world correctly. On the other hand, saying that “if a person is interested in exceptional achievement, this is the last thing they should do” is motivated cognition too. Again, even if you are experimentally right that such belief leads to (higher probability of) exceptional achievement, it does not mean that it reflects the world correctly. Seems to me that both of you are basicly saying “state of mind X leads to outcome Y”… and as far as I know, you may both be right (belief of no-self leads to more tranquility, and belief of self leads to more achievement), and still this is somehow irrelevant to the question what is the nature of the “self”.
Saying “there is no self” can mean a few different things, so let’s try to make the meaning more specific.
First, there is no elementary particle called “self”. At the bottom level of the universe, there are atoms, or more precisely amplitudes of quantum configurations, and everything else is built from them, including my brain, my body, or the computer I’m using to write these words. What consequences do I expect? Even if I say “there is no spoon (as an elementary particle)”, it does not mean that I can bend the spoon using only my mind, or anything like this. The spoon exists on the same level of reality as I do. I could bend it using my hands. I anticipate that the spoon can be modified or destroyed; depending on material it may corrode or dissolve in acid. I anticipate that if I ever learn the history of the spoon, it will show that the spoon was made, not that it existed since the Big Bang. How about the “self”? Similarly, however it is constructed at the lower levels, on this level it appeared at some time, and it can be destroyed.
Second, human mind consists of parts that are sometimes in conflict with each other. This could be used as a further evidence that it is not an elementary particle, but this argument is on a different level of reality: not a particle level, but psychological level. What consequences do I expect? Internal conflicts, akrasia, compartmentalization, and other symptoms of internal disunity.
On the other hand, saying “there is a self” can mean that a person has a shared history with themselves across the time, so we can expect memories, long-term goals, similar reactions to similar stimuli, and other kinds of similarities. A self-aware human will extend their survival instinct to this continuity; they will not only avoid death and pain today, but will also try to avoid tomorrow’s death or pain, though not with the same intensity, because their models of tomorrow are imperfect.
Is there another meaning, another set of anticipated consequences, to saying “there is a self” or “there is no self”?
Upvoted, not because I agree with you, but because it was an interesting text to read. More enjoyable that the original article, which feels like reductionist applause lights. (Although the original article is not that bad, just that its good parts are already better described on LW, so it brings no new value.)
Seems to me that you accuse “neo-Buddhists” of motivated cognition: they profess that there is no self, because they were promised such belief leads to end of suffering. Maybe they are experimentally right about this consequence, but just because some belief makes one happy that does not mean the belief reflects the world correctly. On the other hand, saying that “if a person is interested in exceptional achievement, this is the last thing they should do” is motivated cognition too. Again, even if you are experimentally right that such belief leads to (higher probability of) exceptional achievement, it does not mean that it reflects the world correctly. Seems to me that both of you are basicly saying “state of mind X leads to outcome Y”… and as far as I know, you may both be right (belief of no-self leads to more tranquility, and belief of self leads to more achievement), and still this is somehow irrelevant to the question what is the nature of the “self”.
Saying “there is no self” can mean a few different things, so let’s try to make the meaning more specific.
First, there is no elementary particle called “self”. At the bottom level of the universe, there are atoms, or more precisely amplitudes of quantum configurations, and everything else is built from them, including my brain, my body, or the computer I’m using to write these words. What consequences do I expect? Even if I say “there is no spoon (as an elementary particle)”, it does not mean that I can bend the spoon using only my mind, or anything like this. The spoon exists on the same level of reality as I do. I could bend it using my hands. I anticipate that the spoon can be modified or destroyed; depending on material it may corrode or dissolve in acid. I anticipate that if I ever learn the history of the spoon, it will show that the spoon was made, not that it existed since the Big Bang. How about the “self”? Similarly, however it is constructed at the lower levels, on this level it appeared at some time, and it can be destroyed.
Second, human mind consists of parts that are sometimes in conflict with each other. This could be used as a further evidence that it is not an elementary particle, but this argument is on a different level of reality: not a particle level, but psychological level. What consequences do I expect? Internal conflicts, akrasia, compartmentalization, and other symptoms of internal disunity.
On the other hand, saying “there is a self” can mean that a person has a shared history with themselves across the time, so we can expect memories, long-term goals, similar reactions to similar stimuli, and other kinds of similarities. A self-aware human will extend their survival instinct to this continuity; they will not only avoid death and pain today, but will also try to avoid tomorrow’s death or pain, though not with the same intensity, because their models of tomorrow are imperfect.
Is there another meaning, another set of anticipated consequences, to saying “there is a self” or “there is no self”?