The Axiomatic Self

[1137]

An axiom is something that seems to be self-evidently true. It cannot be questioned or argued against. The simplest example of this is the logical law of identity, that A is A. This also implies that Non-A is Non-A, and A is not Non-A. To even try to argue against the law of identity one would have to rely on it. To illustrate, if you try to say that an orange is an apple, the very process of making the arguments requires the apple to be itself and the orange to be itself, and for them not to be identical. This of course must be objective and remain constant in any situation.



I believe that “I exist” is just as axiomatic as the laws of logic. Even the simple thought of “I” requires the self to already exist, because there is self-realization. Any thought or any realization must get processed through this self first, tainting absolutely everything. Any internal or external information that one has goes through the self. Like the law of identity, it is impossible to argue against the self, because then who would be doing the arguing? If you try to say “I do not exist”, then “I” becomes meaningless and it all falls apart, similar to the issue of saying “there is absolutely no absolute truth”. Even our understanding of the world around us relies on relationships to the self. You are reading these words, you are comparing it to other knowledge, bringing up prior situations, abstractly pondering the problem. While Hard Solipsism or Brain in a Vat may not be worth much in practical life, but almost everyone agrees that there is no “solution” to these problems. Notices that even then, however, the self is realized to axiomatically exist. Further, even if the self is some sort of illusion or larger picture, it still exists to “you”, from “your” perspective. You exist, despite the fact that it may be some sort of illusion.


It is further interesting to mix the law of logic and this axiomatic self. With the Self comes the Non-Self, as required by the law of identity. In fact, this may be the solution to solipsism itself, because for the Self to exist, the Non-Self has to exist as well, meaning there is more that exists than simply your own mind, as posited by solipsism. This, of course, doesn’t address BiaV. There are also other matters to discuss, such as whether there is just the Self and Non-Self, or if both arise from something else, though this is beyond arguing the self as an axiom.


TLDR – “I exist” is axiomatic.

 

[YmirGF]

"I" like this very much, 1137.

I have more than a revolting reaction to the idea that the individual can become "one' with the universe and that the ego magically disappears leaving only reality in all its glory. Both ideas seem to shortchange identity within their given paradigms. In the first case, I do admit that, at first, one does perceive that they are one with the universe, but after prolonged exposure to that state another rather radical view begins to emerge. The individual begins to see that they may have jumped the gun in their initial enthusiasm and that they not, in actually, all that is, and that there is indeed a world around them, of which they are only a small part. In a very real sense, the super-enhanced self meets non-self once again, coming full circle.

Likewise, the idea of ego dissolution is equally problematic and perhaps is not the wisest of endeavors to undertake from a psychological perspective. Human animals have a tendency to mistake egotism or oddball egotistical qualities with ego itself, ignoring how useful an healthy ego can be in coping within a physical world and its endless myriad of relationships. Again, self for some, is like an offering on the alter of aspiration to become some abstract goal that they are not, and feel a need to sacrifice identity to obtain the abstract preconception.

If that doesn't make sense, just smack me and I'll go sit in the corner.

 

[Kent856]

Well put our entire reality is perceived through fleshly eyes and ears and processed by a bundle of neurons. To deny it as an illusion would also mean denying ourselves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe that “I exist” is just as axiomatic as the laws of logic.

That is the ultimate learning in Hinduism and Buddhism. What is 'I'? And most believe that 'I' is either temporary or non-existent. Anicca (transitory) and Anatta(without substance) in Buddhism and 'Maya' (illusion) in Hinduism. For many Hindus 'I' is but the whole, Brahman, what constitutes all things in the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atman_(Hinduism)
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html

@YmirGF, who denies the world? But that is not the ultimate truth (forces, elementary particles, waves). The perceived is not the absolute truth. It is at a lower level of reality accessible by our senses.

To deny it as an illusion would also mean denying ourselves.

Oh, you are attached to that. Cannot leave it, even if there is evidence. Yeah, the stark reality is not acceptable to many. You need a sugared version. Do it and you will find more fun.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Descartes argued that, while we may indeed have reason to doubt or senses, and can even question whether any sensory data is aught but illusions, in order to question one's existence one must exist.
Laplace argued that generalizations from experiments and observations rooted in sensory experience and free choices and used to formulate "laws" of nature should be considered to be true (by an invalid inference) to the entire cosmos. Thus he and all who subscribe to determinism or strong material reductionism have, essentially, decided that, against Descartes, we should rather trust our sensory experience so much so that we deny our own existence as agents/minds/conscious entities/etc.

 

[Kent856]

... Illusion is a made up word by humans. If everything we see or feel or sense Is an "illusion" then we simply merge the word "illusion" and "reality" into one thing. Reality is whatever is real to us. An illusion may be an illusion but it still exists. Stating that everything is an illusion Is simply a play on words in my opinion.

 

[Kueid]

and if the "non-self" is actually an "other self", or an extension of the "self", like when "you" are reading those words from "kueid" typed by "me", you are reading words from kueid or by me? or both? kueid and me are one or two?

also, when "I" look at my hand, I'm looking to "myself" or to "the hand"? I'm looking at myself AND the hand? my hand? kueid's hand? "myself", "the hand", "my hand" AND/OR "kueid's hand"?

stretching more.. maybe when "I" look at "you" or something else the same occur. I'm looking at you or to me? to you AND me? to you AND kueid? to you AND me AND kueid?

is this making sense?

 

[Yerda]

An axiom is something that seems to be self-evidently true. It cannot be questioned or argued against. The simplest example of this is the logical law of identity, that A is A. This also implies that Non-A is Non-A, and A is not Non-A. To even try to argue against the law of identity one would have to rely on it. To illustrate, if you try to say that an orange is an apple, the very process of making the arguments requires the apple to be itself and the orange to be itself, and for them not to be identical. This of course must be objective and remain constant in any situation.



I believe that “I exist” is just as axiomatic as the laws of logic. Even the simple thought of “I” requires the self to already exist, because there is self-realization. Any thought or any realization must get processed through this self first, tainting absolutely everything. Any internal or external information that one has goes through the self. Like the law of identity, it is impossible to argue against the self, because then who would be doing the arguing? If you try to say “I do not exist”, then “I” becomes meaningless and it all falls apart, similar to the issue of saying “there is absolutely no absolute truth”. Even our understanding of the world around us relies on relationships to the self. You are reading these words, you are comparing it to other knowledge, bringing up prior situations, abstractly pondering the problem. While Hard Solipsism or Brain in a Vat may not be worth much in practical life, but almost everyone agrees that there is no “solution” to these problems. Notices that even then, however, the self is realized to axiomatically exist. Further, even if the self is some sort of illusion or larger picture, it still exists to “you”, from “your” perspective. You exist, despite the fact that it may be some sort of illusion.


It is further interesting to mix the law of logic and this axiomatic self. With the Self comes the Non-Self, as required by the law of identity. In fact, this may be the solution to solipsism itself, because for the Self to exist, the Non-Self has to exist as well, meaning there is more that exists than simply your own mind, as posited by solipsism. This, of course, doesn’t address BiaV. There are also other matters to discuss, such as whether there is just the Self and Non-Self, or if both arise from something else, though this is beyond arguing the self as an axiom.


TLDR – “I exist” is axiomatic.

Although it's quite hard to disagree with any of that I'm going to try anyway.

The thought of "I" requires only that the thought exists. We have to make the assumption then that only things we call selves can have a thought. That seems reasonable to me but it's not impossible that the opposite is the case and things other than selves can have thoughts or thoughts can exist independently of selves. I agree that it's difficult to argue against my own existence, but I can say that what I consider to be "I" can be so radically different from what I or you think it is that the idea becomes useless. Uselessness doesn't appear to be a property that we want our axioms to have if we decide we want axioms.

In short, I agree but we might both be wrong.

 

[sayak83]

An axiom is something that seems to be self-evidently true. It cannot be questioned or argued against. The simplest example of this is the logical law of identity, that A is A. This also implies that Non-A is Non-A, and A is not Non-A. To even try to argue against the law of identity one would have to rely on it. To illustrate, if you try to say that an orange is an apple, the very process of making the arguments requires the apple to be itself and the orange to be itself, and for them not to be identical. This of course must be objective and remain constant in any situation.



I believe that “I exist” is just as axiomatic as the laws of logic. Even the simple thought of “I” requires the self to already exist, because there is self-realization. Any thought or any realization must get processed through this self first, tainting absolutely everything. Any internal or external information that one has goes through the self. Like the law of identity, it is impossible to argue against the self, because then who would be doing the arguing? If you try to say “I do not exist”, then “I” becomes meaningless and it all falls apart, similar to the issue of saying “there is absolutely no absolute truth”. Even our understanding of the world around us relies on relationships to the self. You are reading these words, you are comparing it to other knowledge, bringing up prior situations, abstractly pondering the problem. While Hard Solipsism or Brain in a Vat may not be worth much in practical life, but almost everyone agrees that there is no “solution” to these problems. Notices that even then, however, the self is realized to axiomatically exist. Further, even if the self is some sort of illusion or larger picture, it still exists to “you”, from “your” perspective. You exist, despite the fact that it may be some sort of illusion.


It is further interesting to mix the law of logic and this axiomatic self. With the Self comes the Non-Self, as required by the law of identity. In fact, this may be the solution to solipsism itself, because for the Self to exist, the Non-Self has to exist as well, meaning there is more that exists than simply your own mind, as posited by solipsism. This, of course, doesn’t address BiaV. There are also other matters to discuss, such as whether there is just the Self and Non-Self, or if both arise from something else, though this is beyond arguing the self as an axiom.


TLDR – “I exist” is axiomatic.

The perception or the phenomenology of the self certainly exists. Whether there is an actual substantial self behind the perception, or whether its a construct or a complex created by the mind is the question.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The perception or the phenomenology of the self certainly exists. Whether there is an actual substantial self behind the perception, or whether its a construct or a complex created by the mind is the question.

"I" requires a foundational basis from which the mental construct of "I" is based upon.

That foundation itself, however lacks that particular identity of "I" as it's a composite from which the mind and subsequent identity arises, and solidifies "I" as if no such composite exists.

 

[Papoon]

The perception or the phenomenology of the self certainly exists. Whether there is an actual substantial self behind the perception, or whether its a construct or a complex created by the mind is the question.

'A complex created by the mind...' simply renames 'I' as 'the mind'

 

[sayak83]

'A complex created by the mind...' simply renames 'I' as 'the mind'

No. The mind can (and does) create and sustain many other processes other than the perceived self.

 

[Papoon]

No. The mind can (and does) create and sustain many other processes other than the perceived self.

Please define 'the mind'.

 

[Yerda]

Please define 'the mind'.

That thing you think with.

 

[Papoon]

That thing you think with.

LOL

 

[sayak83]

Please define 'the mind'.

That which brain does.

 

[atanu]

An axiom is something that seems to be self-evidently true. It cannot be questioned or argued against. The simplest example of this is the logical law of identity, that A is A. This also implies that Non-A is Non-A, and A is not Non-A. To even try to argue against the law of identity one would have to rely on it. To illustrate, if you try to say that an orange is an apple, the very process of making the arguments requires the apple to be itself and the orange to be itself, and for them not to be identical. This of course must be objective and remain constant in any situation.

I believe that “I exist” is just as axiomatic as the laws of logic. Even the simple thought of “I” requires the self to already exist, because there is self-realization. Any thought or any realization must get processed through this self first, tainting absolutely everything. Any internal or external information that one has goes through the self. Like the law of identity, it is impossible to argue against the self, because then who would be doing the arguing? If you try to say “I do not exist”, then “I” becomes meaningless and it all falls apart, similar to the issue of saying “there is absolutely no absolute truth”. Even our understanding of the world around us relies on relationships to the self. You are reading these words, you are comparing it to other knowledge, bringing up prior situations, abstractly pondering the problem. While Hard Solipsism or Brain in a Vat may not be worth much in practical life, but almost everyone agrees that there is no “solution” to these problems. Notices that even then, however, the self is realized to axiomatically exist. Further, even if the self is some sort of illusion or larger picture, it still exists to “you”, from “your” perspective. You exist, despite the fact that it may be some sort of illusion.

It is further interesting to mix the law of logic and this axiomatic self. With the Self comes the Non-Self, as required by the law of identity. In fact, this may be the solution to solipsism itself, because for the Self to exist, the Non-Self has to exist as well, meaning there is more that exists than simply your own mind, as posited by solipsism. This, of course, doesn’t address BiaV. There are also other matters to discuss, such as whether there is just the Self and Non-Self, or if both arise from something else, though this is beyond arguing the self as an axiom.

TLDR – “I exist” is axiomatic.

To assert, deny or question the existence of self is to prove the self. However, although the self is more intimate than an apple on our palm, the self cannot be known, since it is the knower. Anything known is not the self.

 

[Papoon]

That which brain does.

The brain is a gland. The fact of corollary activity in the wetware does not establish the brain as the 'doer' of 'I', any more than silicon writes its own software.

 

[sayak83]

The brain is a gland. The fact of corollary activity in the wetware does not establish the brain as the 'doer' of 'I', any more than silicon writes its own software.

Of course evolution and genetics have designed the brain such that its activity creates the process which we call the mind. Of course the evolutionary process is completely within the laws of nature. So once again we are within naturalism.

Also its well known that the brain has no software. The hardware-software distinction is a peculiarity of human made machines precisely because they are designed from the outside-in so to speak. The brain develops through the actions of the genetic code from the inside (in a cooperative framework within a community of neurons) and hence the hardware and the software are fully intermingled.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

That which brain does.

That's begging the question in favor of materialism. If you choose to define "mind" as "brain", it makes it impossible to argue that the mind has a non-brain component. And yet many do pose such arguments, and those arguments deserve to be addressed directly and not written out of discussion thru semantics.