This denial that “higher level” entities actually exist causes a problem when we are supposed to identify ourselves with such an entity. Does the mind of a cognitive scientist only exist in the mind of a cognitive scientist?
The belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist only exists in that scientist’s mind. The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.
Exactly. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.” Let’s reword that. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING ‘undecatillion swarms of quarks’ not having any beliefs, with a belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist that only exists in the undecatillion swarms of quarks’s mind.”
Answering the question of who is experiencing the illusion [of self] or interpreting the story is much more problematic. This is partly a conceptual problem and partly a problem of dualism. It is almost impossible to discuss the self without a referent in the same way that is difficult to think about a play without any players. Second, as the philosopher Gilbert Ryle pointed out, in searching for the self, one cannot simultaneously be the hunter and the hunted, and I think that is a dualistic problem if we think we can objectively examine our own minds independently, because our mind and self are both generated by the brain. So while the self illusion suggests an illogical tautology, I think this is only a superficial problem.
This denial that “higher level” entities actually exist causes a problem when we are supposed to identify ourselves with such an entity. Does the mind of a cognitive scientist only exist in the mind of a cognitive scientist?
The belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist only exists in that scientist’s mind. The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.
That observation runs headlong into the problem, rather than solving it.
Exactly. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING the scientist.” Let’s reword that. “The reality is undecatillion swarms of quarks not having any beliefs, and just BEING ‘undecatillion swarms of quarks’ not having any beliefs, with a belief that there is a cognitive mind calling itself a scientist that only exists in the undecatillion swarms of quarks’s mind.”
There seems to be a logic problem there.
Composition fallacy. Try again.
Nope. There is no composition fallacy where there is no composition. I am replying to your position, not to mine.
Answering the question of who is experiencing the illusion [of self] or interpreting the story is much more problematic. This is partly a conceptual problem and partly a problem of dualism. It is almost impossible to discuss the self without a referent in the same way that is difficult to think about a play without any players. Second, as the philosopher Gilbert Ryle pointed out, in searching for the self, one cannot simultaneously be the hunter and the hunted, and I think that is a dualistic problem if we think we can objectively examine our own minds independently, because our mind and self are both generated by the brain. So while the self illusion suggests an illogical tautology, I think this is only a superficial problem.
-Bruce Hood